Get movie details

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: append values enlarge the response ('request only what you need') and the caveat that the reviews section is empty for most titles.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose then the sibling handoff, with denser append detail after. The appended-data inventory is long and somewhat list-heavy, but nearly every clause conveys information an agent needs to choose append values, so little is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value detail, and it does: the core fields, every append section's contents, and the amodb extras (ratings scales, moods scale, soundtracks, wikidata). It even notes the reviews section is usually empty, which is exactly the kind of expectation-setting an agent needs.

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% so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further than the schema by explaining what each append value actually yields (credits = cast/crew, videos = trailers, watch/providers = streaming locations, external_ids = IMDb/Kinopoisk ids) and describing the shape of ratings, moods and soundtracks. That is meaning the bare enum list does not carry.

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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('Get the full record of one movie by its numeric id') and enumerates the returned fields, making it immediately distinguishable from get_tv_show, get_person and get_season. It also routes the agent to search_titles for id acquisition.

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?

Explicitly states the alternative for a related need ('For cinema times use get_showtimes') and the prerequisite workflow ('Get the id from search_titles first'). Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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