Search Titles

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: only 1.7 of 12.8 million titles have ratings, rating/vote filters drop unrated titles, there is no theatrical-release flag, and person filtering uses a default credit definition that can match a series through an episode. These caveats go well beyond the annotations and are essential for correct use.

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 long but well-structured: a one-line purpose, illustrative examples, return-format summary, pagination note, and a clearly labeled limitations section. Each section earns its place, though the number of examples makes it slightly more verbose than strictly necessary.

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 tool with five parameters, a nested filters object, and an output schema, the description covers the key invocation scenarios, pagination, return fields, and critical data-coverage caveats. It is missing only minor explicit guidance on sorting options, which the schema's enum already provides, so the agent can still invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description compensates by explaining the main filter dimensions (text, type, year, genre, rating, votes, person IDs) and the meaning of with_person_ids. It also clarifies pagination via next_cursor. However, it does not directly explain sort_by, sort_direction, or limit semantics, and the nested schema descriptions carry some of that weight.

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: 'Find and rank titles by text, type, year, genre, rating, votes, or who is in them.' It gives concrete example queries and distinguishes itself from the people-focused sibling tools by emphasizing title metadata and explicitly contrasting with the collaboration-count use case.

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 clear usage context through examples and directly explains when with_person_ids is the right approach versus when the user wants a collaboration count instead. It also documents important boundary cases in 'What it cannot do', but it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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