find_film

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and repeat-call profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: drafts are included in results. It says nothing about auth, missing-film behavior (null vs error), or rate limits.

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?

Three sentences, zero waste: capability first, usage rationale second, parameter format third. The Args block restates nothing that isn't useful, and the most decision-relevant information (what it is, when to use it) is front-loaded.

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 documentation is not required, and the single required parameter plus its format is explained. What remains thin is the identity boundary against get_film and search_films, which the agent must infer from the 'before adding it' framing.

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 all parameter meaning, and it does: it specifies the accepted format as an IMDb id ('tt0816692') or a full IMDb URL. That is the key ambiguity an agent would otherwise guess wrong on, though it does not say whether the two forms are normalized identically or if the URL may include query strings.

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 ('Find a film by its IMDb id') plus a scope qualifier ('including drafts') that no sibling exposes. It implicitly separates itself from title-based lookup like search_films by arguing the ID route is more reliable, but no sibling is named outright, so sibling differentiation is contextual rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use context: the pre-add deduplication check before create_film, with the rationale (titles repeat across remakes and translations). There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use search_films or list_films when you only have a title), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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