Get IMDb/RT/Metacritic ratings

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds important behavioral details: no-match returns {found:false, reason}, imdb_id takes precedence over title, and the type parameter's effect on ambiguous title lookups. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. It includes necessary details but could be slightly more concise. However, it remains clear and informative without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description adequately covers all needed context: what is returned, how to use the parameters, prerequisites, and error behavior. It addresses potential ambiguity and provides complete guidance.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds extra value by explaining the type parameter's role in disambiguation and noting imdb_id precedence, beyond what the schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool looks up IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, and Metacritic ratings, an awards summary, and OMDb age rating. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_movie/get_tv by noting they already include this data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Prefer get_movie/get_tv when you have a TMDB id — they already include this.' Also specifies required API key, parameter requirements (one of imdb_id or title), and error handling for missing parameters and no-match lookups.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.