get_chart

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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world profile, so the safety burden is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are paginated, limit is per page, and cursor must be the next_cursor from the prior page, which is the key operational detail for a paginated endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact Args block; every line earns its place. Slight redundancy between the opening list of chart themes and the repeated enumeration in Args.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers all three params plus pagination mechanics. Complete enough to invoke correctly; only defaults and explicit sibling routing are absent.

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% and there are no enums, so the description must carry the load — and it does, fully enumerating the six valid chart strings, which the schema does not. It also explains limit as entries per page and cursor as the prior page's next_cursor. It stops short of stating defaults (top_rated_movies, 25), which the schema does carry.

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?

Opens with a specific verb-resource framing ('IMDb's charts') and enumerates the concrete chart types, so an agent knows this returns ranked chart listings. It implicitly distinguishes itself from get_box_office by naming chart categories rather than box-office data, though it never says so outright.

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?

Enumerating the chart values implies when each is appropriate (Top 250 vs lowest rated vs most popular), which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over siblings like get_box_office or advanced_title_search, and no stated prerequisites.

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