Search movies

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description only needs to add non-obvious behavior. It does: fuzzy matching semantics and the fact that the payload is ids keyed for downstream tools rather than movie records. Pagination behavior (20 per page, up to page 500) is left entirely to the schema.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core operation and its fuzzy nature are front-loaded, and the downstream-routing and disambiguation hints follow in priority order.

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 detail is not the description's job, and it still usefully summarizes the key return fact (ids). For a simple three-parameter search whose annotations cover safety and idempotency, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds it by explaining *why* `year` exists — to disambiguate remakes — which the schema's bare "Release year" does not convey. `query` and `page` are still only defined by the schema, hence not a 5.

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 movies by title") and immediately qualifies the matching mode as fuzzy. It is trivially distinguishable from search_tv_shows and search_people, and the note that it returns ids rather than full records sharpens the scope further.

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?

Explicitly routes the caller downstream ("ids to use with get_movie_details, get_recommendations and get_watch_providers") and gives a concrete condition for the year parameter ("disambiguate remakes"). It stops short of saying when to prefer the `discover` sibling for genre/browse-style queries, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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