identify_title

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The words 'Guess' and 'via OMDb' convey approximation and an external dependency, but there is no disclosure of failure modes, rate limits, required keys, or whether this is a read-only network call.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence contains the action, target, input example, and data source with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, but it lacks context that matters for an external fuzzy lookup: what year is for, what happens on no match, network/API considerations, and when to choose a sibling instead. The description is too sparse for an annotation-free tool.

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 compensate. It maps title_hint to 'messy title', but it never explains the optional year parameter, its disambiguation purpose, or expected formats, leaving part of the schema unexplained.

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 uses the specific verb 'Guess' with a concrete resource, 'the IMDb id/title for a messy title,' and adds a clarifying example ('cleaned-up filename'). It clearly indicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling search/lookup tools.

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?

It implies the tool is appropriate for messy, non-canonical inputs and clarifies the source is OMDb. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools like lookup_title or search_title, and no exclusions.

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