Search media

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

The description discloses that it returns 'Ryot's cached search response', indicating the data may not be real-time. No annotations are provided, so this behavioural detail (caching) is valuable. However, it does not mention any other traits like rate limits, auth requirements, or side effects.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and a key behavioural detail. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or waste. Structurally efficient.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (3 required) and no output schema, the description lacks sufficient detail. It does not explain how to use the 'page' parameter for pagination, what the response looks like, or how to match enum values for 'lot' and 'source'. The agent is left without critical information for correct invocation.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, lot, source, page) beyond their names. While enum values for 'lot' and 'source' are self-evident, the description adds no semantic guidance, leaving the agent to infer meaning from the schema alone.

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 description clearly states it searches Ryot metadata for a wide range of media types (movies, shows, books, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ryot_search_movie or ryot_search_show. The verb 'Search' and the listed categories make the purpose explicit and specific.

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?

The description implies general search usage by listing many media categories, but it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over the more specific sibling search tools (e.g., ryot_search_movie). No exclusion criteria or alternative suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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