get_title

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds only that the payload is comprehensive, without covering not-found behavior, payload size/cost, or whether missing fields are omitted or nulled.

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 core sentence is front-loaded and dense with useful information, and the Args block is short. The field enumeration is slightly list-like and partially redundant with the output schema, but nothing is padded.

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-shape detail is unnecessary, and rich annotations cover safety and idempotency. For a single-parameter read tool, the description supplies the one thing structured fields lack: the accepted id formats.

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 carries the parameter burden and does so well: it gives the IMDb-id format with a concrete example (tt0078748) and, importantly, states that a full IMDb URL containing an id is also accepted. It stops short of describing validation or error behavior for malformed input.

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 and resource ('Get one title in full') and enumerates the returned facets (plot, ratings, cast and crew, genres, release, certificate, awards, taglines, poster). This implicitly separates it from narrower siblings like get_title_credits or get_title_reviews, though it never names them 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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the routing signal is only implied by 'in full' versus the focused siblings in the same namespace. An agent must infer that this is the aggregate fetch and the sibling tools are the targeted ones.

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