rottentomatoes_movie

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly discloses what the tool returns (metadata, scorecard, reviews). No hidden side effects or limitations are mentioned, but for a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately covers the return values (metadata, scorecard, reviews). It could specify that it returns a single movie object, but the current level is sufficient for an agent to understand the output.

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% with descriptions for both 'path' and 'url'. The description adds critical semantic detail: 'Pass exactly one of `path` or `url`', indicating mutual exclusivity not captured in the schema. This significantly helps the agent understand parameter constraints.

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 it returns 'Rotten Tomatoes movie detail' with specific data types (metadata, scorecard, audience reviews). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'rottentomatoes_movie_reviews' and 'rottentomatoes_search' by focusing on a single movie's detail.

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 explicitly instructs to 'Pass exactly one of `path` or `url`', which is useful guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'rottentomatoes_movie_reviews' or 'rottentomatoes_browse_movies', though the context implies it's for getting detailed info on a specific movie.

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