Get movie details

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: certification fallback logic (region → US → any country), the degradation of 'ratings' to {found:false, reason} when OMDb is unavailable rather than failing, and the distinct nature of OMDb's ratings.rated vs the tool's own certification. This is rich, honest disclosure that anticipates real-world edge cases.

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 long but densely packed with necessary information, and it is well-structured: main purpose, then certification details, then ratings/fallback, then guidance to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place; however, it could be slightly tightened without losing critical context. Still, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, so it's not padded.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple fields, fallback behaviors, optional enrichment), the description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites (OMDB_API_KEY), failure modes (degraded ratings), and the source of the ID, leaving no obvious gaps for the agent. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return format, but the description already covers key behavior.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic depth: it explains how region affects certification fallback, what language does (localizes titles and genre names), and the full implications of include_ratings (including the requirement for OMDB_API_KEY and the benefit of skipping). These details go beyond the schema's bare descriptions and help the agent make informed decisions.

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 explicitly states it retrieves full details for one movie by TMDB ID, listing many fields (overview, genres, runtime, etc.). It clearly differentiates from sibling get_movies (plural) by noting the trimmed-down headline-only nature, and from get_tv by focusing on movies. The verb 'Get' and resource 'movie details' are specific and 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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'If you only need the headline info... use get_movies instead' and 'Get the id from search_movies.' This not only helps select the tool but also directs to the correct source for the required ID. It also explains the optional include_ratings flag and when to set it to false, providing clear alternative paths within the tool.

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