Find a Cineplex movie by title

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses fuzzy matching and paging through all results, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or discuss potential performance impacts. More transparency about safety (non-destructive) would improve the score.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action. No extraneous information; every part is meaningful and earns its place.

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 simple parameter set (one required) and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior, including the fuzzy matching and page-through mechanism, and explains the tool's relevance to the workflow. It could be slightly more explicit about return format, but this is a minor gap.

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 100% schema description coverage, the description adds value by explaining that the title is fuzzy-matched and that the result is the best match, which is not evident from the schema alone. This provides context beyond the parameter's type and description.

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 tool's action: fuzzy-match a movie title against Cineplex's current catalog. It specifies the resource (movie titles, Cineplex catalog) and output (best match with movie ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_theatres.

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 that the tool is a preliminary step to obtain a movie ID for other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No direct usage guidelines beyond inferred context.

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