omdb_search

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not contradict them. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—nothing about API-key requirements, result limits, pagination, or what the search returns.

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 the core action front-loaded. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 4-parameter search tool with no output schema and low schema description coverage, the definition is too thin. An agent can infer the required search term, but the optional year/type filters and api_key behavior remain unexplained, leaving meaningful operational gaps.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not explain the optional year, type, or api_key parameters at all, and adds no meaning beyond the schema's own 'Search term' label for s.

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 states a clear verb and resource: searching movies/TV shows on OMDB. It is understandable without opening the schema, though it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling title/id lookup tools such as omdb_by_title and omdb_by_id.

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 guidance on when to use this search tool versus omdb_by_title or omdb_by_id, nor any mention of prerequisites such as an API key. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search' and the required search term in the schema.

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