Search production companies

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds important behavioral context: the tool may return multiple rows for the same name, and suggests disambiguating fields. Does not contradict 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?

Three well-focused sentences. First states purpose with examples, second tells downstream usage, third warns about duplicates and gives disambiguation advice. No unnecessary words. Efficient and clear.

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 tool's moderate complexity (simple search with pagination), the description covers purpose, usage, disambiguation, and downstream integration. Schema and annotations already provide rich structured data. The description is complete for agent decision-making.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. Description adds value by explaining how to use the output (feed id to other tools) and disambiguation hints, though it doesn't add extra parameter details beyond schema. Baseline 3, elevated for contextual addition.

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?

Clearly states the purpose: resolve company name to TMDB numeric id. Provides concrete examples (A24, Pixar) and explains downstream usage (feed to discover_movies/discover_tv via with_companies). Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on companies.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use: to get a company id for use with discover endpoints. Warns about non-unique company names and advises checking origin_country and logo_url for disambiguation. Provides explicit guidance on handling multiple results.

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