rottentomatoes_editorial_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load. It discloses the return payload (body, paragraphs, headings, links, images, video embeds) and that body_html preserves public Gutenberg/ranked-list markup, which is genuinely useful output context. It does not state permissions, rate limits, or that this is a read-only operation, leaving gaps for a no-annotation 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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the payload description second; no filler. Slightly list-heavy in the middle but each clause carries 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?

With no output schema, the description properly takes on the job of describing the return payload and even notes markup preservation, so an agent knows what it gets back. It is largely complete for a single-param detail endpoint, though it omits any safety/permission framing.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Discovered Editorial content path'. The description reinforces that the path is discovered from editorial content collections, adding mild routing context, but contributes nothing about format or constraints beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('editorial article detail') and enumerates the content types it covers (article, gallery, guide, on-the-go article, preview), which is more specific than the bare name. It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like rottentomatoes_editorial_search, but the 'detail' framing plus the path requirement makes the role distinguishable.

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 sentence 'Discover paths from editorial content collections' gives a useful prerequisite hint about where the required path comes from, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. editorial_search) for locating content.

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