TMDb — Search movie

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It's a search (read-only) operation, so there's no destructive risk, but the description doesn't mention pagination behavior, result limits, whether partial matches are returned, or any rate-limit considerations. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, more behavioral context is needed.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately short for a straightforward search tool, though it could use the available space to add distinguishing or behavioral context without becoming verbose.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this description is thin. For a search tool with 5 parameters and no result-format documentation, the description should explain what results look like, how pagination works, or how it differs from the other film search tools in its sibling list. The current description leaves most operational details to the agent's inference.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters, but it explains none of them. There are 5 parameters (query, page, year, language, includeAdult) whose meanings are mostly inferable from their names but not documented. The description does not compensate for the 0% schema coverage, so even though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the baseline of 3 cannot be exceeded since no semantic value is added.

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 'Search The Movie Database for movies' has a clear verb (search) and resource (TMDb movies), so it conveys the basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like film_omdb_search or the broader search_across_all tools, which also perform media searches. The use of the full name 'The Movie Database' helps clarity but there's no scoping or distinctiveness.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like film_omdb_search, books_google_search, or the aggregated search_across_all tools. The description implies it's for searching TMDb's catalog but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or when-to-use-alternatives guidance. With 16 siblings including other film/media search tools, this is a significant gap.

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