search_titles

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), so the description does not need to restate it. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond that, such as matching behavior or result characteristics, but it does not contradict the annotations either.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the usage condition is stated immediately, making the definition easy to parse and act on.

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?

For a simple search tool with a robust annotation set and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers what the tool does and when to use it; minor omissions like exact-match behavior or response ordering are not critical given the output schema exists.

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?

The schema has no descriptions for query or limit, and the description only partially compensates by implying the query is a title string rather than a tt ID. The parameter names and default are largely self-explanatory, but no extra semantic detail is provided about matching rules, limit bounds, or query formatting.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Search IMDb titles') and adds a clear scoping condition ('Use this first for a title without a tt ID'). This unambiguously distinguishes the tool from the sibling rating/watchlist/auth tools, none of which perform title search.

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?

The description gives explicit situational guidance: use this tool first when there is no tt ID already available. It does not name an alternative tool for the tt ID case, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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