rottentomatoes_editorial_terms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a genuinely useful constraint (taxonomy-specific parameter applicability). But it says nothing about pagination behavior, whether results are cached, permissions, or response shape, which a mutation-free listing tool of 13 params should ideally cover.

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, front-loaded with the core action, then the taxonomy-discovery pointer, then the parameter constraints. No filler. Loses a point only because the constraint clause is slightly dense.

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?

For a 13-parameter filtered-list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the taxonomy dimension but leaves the agent without any sense of the returned term structure or pagination envelope. Adequate given full schema coverage, but not rich.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's statement that `parent` is categories-only and `offset` is supported by other taxonomies largely restates what the schema property descriptions already say, adding only a marginal cross-parameter framing.

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: 'Pages public terms from one discovered editorial taxonomy.' An agent understands this is the terms-listing endpoint and can see it differs from the taxonomies-listing endpoint. It stops short of explicitly contrasting and routing against siblings like rottentomatoes_editorial_taxonomies by name, so not a 5.

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?

It implies the workflow by pointing to `/rottentomatoes/editorial/taxonomies` as the source of valid taxonomy values, and it flags that `parent` only applies to categories while `offset` applies to the rest. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the other editorial endpoints, so usage is inferred rather than prescribed.

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