Search Media

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and it discloses almost nothing. It does not explain matching semantics (substring vs exact), what happens with the default empty query, sort order, or whether the search spans the user's whole library. It only repeats the read-style verb 'search'.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though arguably too terse for a 4-parameter search tool where routing and matching behavior matter.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the annotations are absent while all four parameters are documented in the schema. What is missing is behavioral and routing context: default-empty-query behavior and how it relates to sibling discovery tools.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add value by clarifying what the vague 'Search keywords' query matches against (title, director, genre), but it ignores the status and media_type filters entirely.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('movies and series in library') and names the searchable facets (title, director, genre). The media scope implicitly distinguishes it from search_books, search_restaurants and search_sensory_vault, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With several overlapping siblings (get_watchlist, vet_recommendation_candidate, curate_for_tonight), the description never explains when to run a raw library search instead of those alternatives.

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