List TMDB Movie Watch Providers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It conveys a read-only list operation via 'Lists' and adds regional scope, but does not disclose parameter optionality, return format details, or any potential edge cases. It is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks depth.

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 ten-word sentence with no filler. Every word serves a purpose: the verb, scope, resource, and usage context are all present 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?

For a simple listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys the result contents (names and IDs) and the regional aspect. However, it omits details about how parameters affect results and the structure of the returned list, leaving minor gaps.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints at the 'region' parameter through 'regional' and ignores the 'language' parameter entirely. No mention of which parameters are optional or their expected formats leaves the agent under-informed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('regional movie streaming-provider names and IDs'), clearly distinguishing from the sibling 'tmdb_list_tv_watch_providers' by specifying 'movie'. It also adds the intended use case ('for discovery filters'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for discovery filters' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., the TV counterpart) or provide any exclusions. It only gives a contextual hint, not clear guidance.

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