get_similar_titles

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one contribution is that the list is what IMDb itself lists (i.e., ordering is external/curated, not computed by the tool) — useful, but nothing is said about ordering guarantees, whether limit is silently capped, or behavior when the id is unknown.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and waste-free. The trailing "Args:" block is largely redundant with the input schema, but it is short and does not obscure the core statement.

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-value explanation is not required, and annotations cover the safety profile. What remains missing for a two-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage is the id format and the semantics of limit — gaps the description should have closed but does not.

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 carry the burden, yet it only restates the schema property labels ("id: Title id", "limit: How many to return"). It never specifies the id format (e.g., IMDb tt-prefixed ids) or any bound on limit, so an agent still cannot construct a valid call with confidence beyond guessing.

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 phrase "Titles IMDb lists as more like this one" unambiguously identifies the resource: a similarity/recommendation list for a given title, clearly distinct from siblings like get_title, get_title_reviews, or get_title_credits. It lacks an explicit verb ("return"/"fetch") and is written as a noun fragment, so it falls short of the ideal verb+resource form, but the resource is unmistakable.

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 guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite many siblings that could plausibly be confused with it (get_title, search_titles, get_title_reviews). The agent must infer that this is for recommendations rather than for general title lookup, entirely from the one-line purpose.

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