justwatch_title_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches and summarizes data, implying a read-only operation. It lists the types of information returned (provider availability, monetization buckets, etc.), which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive, nor does it mention any potential side effects (though none are expected).

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 two sentences long: the first explains the tool's purpose and output, and the second provides a critical usage instruction. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the most important 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides sufficient context about what the tool does and returns. It summarizes the key output categories (provider availability, monetization buckets, etc.), which is adequate for an agent to understand the return value. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's detail.

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 has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by instructing 'Pass exactly one of `path` or `url`', which clarifies that despite both being optional in the schema, exactly one should be provided. This prevents ambiguity and helps the AI agent avoid invalid API calls.

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 verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'JustWatch title availability'. It specifies that it fetches a title page and summarizes provider availability, monetization buckets, formats, price ranges, and best options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like justwatch_title (which likely returns raw title data) and justwatch_title_offers (which may focus on individual offers).

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 says 'Pass exactly one of `path` or `url`', which is a clear usage instruction. However, it does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools, nor does it state when not to use it. A brief mention of scenarios (e.g., 'Use this for a summarized overview instead of raw title data') would improve the score.

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