Search Filimo and Namava

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: every hit carries a `ref` for chaining, and the return shape differs by site (Filimo returns year, rating, genres and summary; Namava returns only title, kind and year). With no output schema, that asymmetry is important context.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then routing then return-shape caveat. Nothing is filler, though the final clause packs two site-specific behaviors into one compound sentence that could be split for easier scanning.

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 read-only search with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, routing, chaining, and per-site return differences. It stops short of stating behavior for zero results or how `limit` interacts with the combined two-site response, which would fully close the loop.

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 100% with enums on `kind` and `site` and bounds on `limit`, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description implies the query is matched against titles but adds no format, matching, or limit semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (search) plus the exact resources (Filimo and Namava catalogs) and the retrieval mode (by title, returning movies and series with a ref). The scope is immediately distinguishable from sibling browse/where tools.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use first when the user names a title'), names the alternative for the other case ('Use vod_where instead to learn which service has one specific title'), and routes follow-up steps to vod_title and vod_episodes via the ref. When-to-use, when-not, and alternatives are all present.

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