Search-Movie

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns '未验证的搜索结果列表' (unverified search results), specifies the return format ('包含标题、链接和质量信息'), and explains the verification workflow. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the purpose and return format, the second provides crucial workflow guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for a 4-parameter tool, the description does well on purpose and workflow but leaves significant gaps. It explains the verification workflow clearly but doesn't document parameters or provide detailed behavioral context about search limitations, result formats, or error conditions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and 4 parameters (2 required), the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'title', 'type', 'season', or 'episode' mean, their expected formats, or how they affect the search. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 the specific action ('搜索电影或电视剧资源'), the resource ('电影或电视剧资源'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool by explaining the workflow relationship. It explicitly mentions using this tool first to get candidate resources, then using validate_video_url for verification.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('获取候选资源后') and when to use the alternative ('然后使用 validate_video_url 工具验证其可播放性'). It establishes a clear workflow sequence between the two tools.

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