Get Related TMDB Movies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation and describes the two behavioral modes, but it does not explain pagination, language handling, response structure, or any potential limitations. It adds some context beyond the schema but leaves significant aspects unspecified.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary action and clearly mentions the default behavior. While it could be slightly more structured with separate clauses, it is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is notably incomplete. It does not specify that movieId is required, how pagination works, what the response contains, or how 'similar' differs from 'recommendations' beyond 'genre-and-keyword.' The agent would need to infer many details from the schema or external knowledge.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly explains the 'kind' parameter by mentioning recommendations vs. similar, but it ignores page, movieId, and language. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds little value for the majority of parameters, leaving the agent without additional semantic guidance.

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 gets recommendations or similar movies, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes the two modes (default recommendations vs. similar), though it does not explicitly name sibling tools for alternative purposes. This is clear enough for an agent to understand the tool's core function.

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 by explaining the default behavior (recommendations) and an alternative mode (similar). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like tmdb_search_movies or tmdb_discover_movies, nor does it mention exclusion criteria. This is implied rather than explicitly stated.

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