search_movies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose useful behavior: results are ordered by popularity via showtime count, include specific fields, and support search-as-you-type. It does not discuss rate limits or data freshness, but for a simple search tool the disclosed behavior is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core behavior stated first, followed by useful result-ordering details and a clean Args breakdown. Every sentence adds information beyond the schema.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers search behavior, result ordering, returned fields, and parameter constraints. Nothing needed to call it correctly appears missing.

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 must fully compensate, and it does. It explains query as a film title fragment of at least 1 character, and limit as max results with default 5 and max 25—details not present in the input schema properties.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search film titles by name fragment', which is distinct from sibling tools like search_cinemas or list-style tools like movies_now_showing. The search-as-you-type behavior makes the tool's role unmistakable.

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 intended use is implied clearly by 'Search film titles by name fragment' and the search-as-you-type qualifier, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as search_cinemas or movies_now_showing. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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