justwatch_providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'credential-free public,' which hints at authentication requirements but omits details such as default behavior when country is omitted, response structure, error handling, or rate limits. This is insufficient since it is not a simple identity tool.

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 with two sentences; the first states the action and resource, the second adds key qualifiers ('credential-free', 'public', 'for a country'). No wasted words, but slight improvement could be made by front-loading the purpose more directly.

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 many justwatch sibling tools, the description successfully identifies the scope (providers catalog by country). However, it lacks completeness regarding return format, default country handling, error scenarios, and any additional context that would aid an agent using the tool. With no output schema, more detail would be beneficial.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters (just 'country' with description 'Two-letter country code'). The description adds context by linking it to the provider catalog, but does not clarify the optionality or behavior when omitted. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already defines the parameter.

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 'Get JustWatch providers' and specifies it returns the 'credential-free public JustWatch provider catalog for a country.' This verb+resource combination and the added context effectively distinguish it from many justwatch sibling tools that deal with titles, offers, or episodes.

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 usage for retrieving provider catalogs by country, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like justwatch_search or justwatch_provider_titles. No guidance on when not to use or prerequisites is provided.

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