Where to watch

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the tool's behavior: returns matched title, year, provider list grouped by category, and includes a link to OTTASIA. It does not mention any side effects, authentication, or rate limits, but as a read-only tool this is acceptable.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states purpose, then usage condition, then output format, then example streamers. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers all necessary information: input parameters (title and country with examples), output format (matched title, year, providers grouped, link), and specific countries and streamers. No missing details for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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% with good descriptions already. The description adds extra context such as example titles ('Squid Game', 'RRR') and streaming services (Netflix, Amazon Prime, etc.), which helps the agent understand typical use cases beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find which streaming services carry a specific movie or TV show in a specific Asian or Middle Eastern country.' It specifies the exact region and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_titles and whats_new_on by focusing on streaming availability in 30 specific markets.

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 explicitly instructs when to use: 'Use this tool whenever a user asks where can I watch X in Y for any of these 30 markets' and lists the countries. It also provides examples of streamers. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or directly contrast with siblings.

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