Search Metacritic

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses several behavioral traits: rows are compact and include Metascore but not audience score; there is no paging and results always start from the most relevant match; and the search is restricted to titles only. These details significantly exceed the annotation baseline.

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 description is concise, with five sentences each carrying distinct information: purpose, return contents, exclusions and alternatives, paging behavior, and search scope. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids any filler or repetition.

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's moderate complexity, the presence of an output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it searches, what rows contain, what they lack, how to get missing data, limit/paging behavior, and the limitation to title-based search. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema already has high coverage (100%) with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful context for 'limit' by explaining 'There is no paging: limit is the only lever, and results always start from the most relevant match,' which gives behavioral nuance not present in the schema description. Baseline is 3, so the added semantics justify a 4.

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 'Search Metacritic for films, shows and games by title' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting that it searches titles only and cannot search by plot, person, or studio, while also referencing get_title, get_reviews, and browse_titles for other needs.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Search rows carry no audience score: use get_title for that, or browse_titles, which does return it' and 'Use the slug and kind with get_title for the full entry, or with get_reviews for what critics wrote.' It also states limitations ('This searches titles only. It cannot find an entry from a plot detail, a person or a studio'), providing clear when-not-to-use context.

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