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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: broadcasts are sorted chronologically from now in Europe/Paris, film:null means absent or masked, and an empty list does not prove absence of future rebroadcasts. These are valuable edge-case semantics not visible in annotations or 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?

The description is compact and information-dense with no filler. Each sentence adds a distinct, useful fact: purpose, pagination scope, null meaning, and empty-list caveat.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description covers the essential invocation details: how to obtain the ID, how pagination behaves, ordering, timezone, and edge-case interpretation. An agent has enough context to call this tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 schema description coverage at only 33%, the description compensates by explaining that page and limite paginate only the broadcasts, which is crucial for correct usage. The source of id_film is also stated, though limite and id_film lack detailed schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('Obtenir'), a precise resource (public film record plus upcoming broadcasts), and ties the identifier to a specific source (rechercher_films). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search/list tools.

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 explains that the ID comes from rechercher_films, which implies when to use this tool after a search. It also clarifies that page and limite affect only the broadcast list, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name an alternative for broadcast search.

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