search_movies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination in the return type ('paginated movie results') and error handling for validation failures, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, whether this is a read-only operation, or what happens with partial matches. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 efficiently organized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then provides parameter explanations in a labeled 'Args' section, followed by return and error information. Every sentence adds value with no redundant information. The formatting with clear section headers makes it easy to parse.

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 search tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic functionality adequately but has gaps. It explains parameters well and mentions pagination, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't describe the response format, error types beyond validation, or how results are ordered. Given the complexity level and lack of structured data, it's minimally viable but incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it does so effectively. It explains both parameters: 'search_term' as 'Search query (movie title, series, studio)' and 'year' as 'Optional filter by release year (1900-current year)'. The description adds meaningful context about what the search_term can include and the valid range for year, which the bare schema doesn't provide.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search for full-length movies by term and optional year.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (full-length movies), and scope (by term and optional year). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_jav' or 'search_scenes' which suggests similar search functionality for different content types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'search_jav' and 'search_scenes' that appear to search different content types, there's no indication of when this movie search is appropriate versus those other search tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when to choose it.

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