get-movie-detail

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what data is returned, or any side effects. The description is simply a restatement of the name with no behavioral detail.

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 under-specified rather than genuinely concise. 'get movie detail' contains no useful information that isn't already in the tool name, so it fails to earn its place.

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?

The tool is a simple get-by-id operation, but the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'detail' includes, what the return value looks like, or how to handle errors. Given there is no output schema, the description should carry responsibility for explaining the response, and it does nothing.

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 provides full coverage for the single parameter 'id' with a clear description ('douban movie id'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and the schema sufficiently explains the parameter.

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 'get movie detail' is a tautology that simply restates the tool name. It provides no additional specificity about what kind of detail, what resource is accessed, or how it differs from siblings beyond the name itself.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-movie or get-tv-detail. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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