Where to watch a title

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the match ordering (exact title first, then titles containing the words), the returned keys (per-site matches and available_on), and the catalog-only scope limit. It stops short of describing result limits or what happens when nothing matches.

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 with the core purpose and the trigger question, then scope limits and handoffs. Tight overall, though the final sentence about passing vod_search results to vod_title is a workflow note rather than information about this tool.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by naming the returned fields and match ordering. For a two-parameter, annotation-covered read tool this is nearly complete; only empty-result or result-count behavior is unstated.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the year's remake-disambiguation purpose. The description adds no further semantics about title format or year handling, so the 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 and resource ('Tell which of Filimo and Namava carries a title') plus the mechanism (searches both catalogs and matches title text). An agent can distinguish it immediately from vod_search (discovery) and vod_title (details), both of which are named.

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 phrase ('is X on Filimo or Namava') and an explicit exclusion: it only checks catalogs, not subscription requirements, and routes that need to vod_title. It also points to vod_search as the upstream step, so the when/when-not/alternative triad is fully covered.

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