Production List

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: contact details are never returned, and attached productions are ordered active-first — both material to interpreting results.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, that packs identifier formats, returned fields, ordering, and an explicit exclusion without a wasted clause.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the returned fields and the contact-details exclusion. It omits what happens when the company is not found and whether the attached productions list is truncated or paginated, which are the only notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter. It does: id_or_slug accepts a slug, an id, or a full productionlist.com/production-contact/… URL, which is far more useful than the bare string type in the schema.

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 (returns) and resource (one production company), enumerates the accepted identifier forms, and names the payload contents. The word 'one' plus the identifier-based lookup cleanly separates it from search_companies and get_production.

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 the use case (fetch a single known company by slug, id, or URL) but never states when to prefer it over search_companies or what happens when the identifier is unknown. Usage is inferable from 'one ... by slug, id, or ... URL' rather than explicitly guided.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: contact details are never returned and the contacts field only signals whether contacts are on file — an important privacy/return-content constraint not present in structured data.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and accepted identifier forms before the field enumeration. Dense but every clause carries payload information; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-value disclosure and does enumerate the key fields, plus the contacts caveat. Safety is covered by annotations. Missing only failure behavior for invalid slugs/ids, which is a minor gap for a one-parameter read.

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 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Slug (preferred), numeric id, or the page URL'). The description restates the same accepted forms without adding syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Returns one production') and enumerates the payload (synopsis, stage, dates, locations, companies, people with roles), which implicitly distinguishes it from search_productions. An agent can tell this is a single-record fetch without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the identifier-based lookup ('by slug, id, or productionlist.com/... URL'), so the agent can infer this is a direct-fetch tool. However, it never names search_productions as the alternative for when the identifier is unknown, nor states any when-not conditions.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that the result is scoped to four specific filter categories, but says nothing about result shape or whether the values are static/cacheable, so it adds only modest context beyond annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the resource and the scope of the return value with zero filler. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does name what is returned (valid slugs) and for which filters. It stops short of describing the response structure (e.g. a mapping of category to slug list) or any ordering guarantees, which for a zero-parameter lookup is a minor remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs. It does usefully enumerate the four filter categories the returned slugs apply to, which is extra meaning not present in the empty schema.

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 names a specific verb ("Returns") and a concrete resource (valid slugs for the stage, type, status, and company category filters), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, reference the sibling tools whose filters these slugs feed (search_companies, search_productions), so the differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 title "List valid filter values" and the mention of "filters" imply this is a lookup to run before a filtered search, but the description never states when to call it, when not to, or which sibling consumes its output. Usage is inferable but not explicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description instead adds genuinely new behavior: the exact field set returned and the deliberate exclusion of a company's productions, which prevents over-reading the results. It stops short of describing 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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the primary lookup modes front-loaded before the return-value note. Every clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly spells out the returned fields, which is the main completeness requirement here. The remaining gap is pagination semantics for page/limit, and no guidance on behavior when a search matches nothing.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does add real semantics for q (name substring) and category (category slug) that the bare string schemas lack. However, page and limit are left entirely unexplained in both schema and description, so compensation is only partial.

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 ('Finds production companies') plus the two lookup modes (name substring or category slug). It does not name or contrast itself with the sibling get_company/search_productions, so an agent must infer the boundary, but the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for locating companies, and the closing clause ('a company's productions are not included') hints that production lookups belong elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as search_productions or get_company.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are newest first, and each result carries url, updated_at and production_dates.start where known.

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?

Dense but tightly packed with no filler; the core action leads and filter semantics follow. It reads as a compact reference block rather than prose, which suits a search tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully names the returned fields and the sort order, and covers the non-obvious filters. Only pagination behavior (page/limit interplay, free-tier cap) is left to the schema, a minor gap for an 11-param tool.

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 64% across 11 params, so the description must compensate and does: it clarifies q is title-only, spells out the stage enum values, explains state accepts two-letter US/Canadian codes or UK region names, and defines since vs updated_since. It leaves page, type and status to the schema, which is reasonable.

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 ('Searches and filters film and TV productions'), which clearly separates it from get_production and get_company. It never explicitly contrasts itself with search_companies, so sibling differentiation is left partly to inference.

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 clause 'q matches the title only (not companies or people)' implicitly routes company/people queries elsewhere, but no alternative tool is named and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage is implied through filter semantics rather than explicit when-to-use guidance.

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