Search movie collections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that — multiple matches are possible, TV queries return zero results, and results are localized by `language`. It stops short of describing pagination limits, but the schema covers those.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and tightly written with no filler. It is dense — one long multi-clause paragraph with several parenthetical examples — which costs a bit of scannability but every clause carries information.

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?

Covers selection criteria, alternatives, the movies-only constraint, ambiguity handling, and localization behavior; an output schema exists, so the return-value detail given is a bonus rather than a requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline would be 3; the description adds genuine meaning by showing how `language` alters the `name` field ('de-DE' → 'Harry Potter Filmreihe') and by enumerating the returned row fields. `query` is clarified as a franchise name, though `page` is left entirely to the schema.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: resolve a franchise name to a TMDB collection id, and defines what a collection is. It explicitly separates itself from get_collection (which takes the id) and get_movie (whose `collection` field carries the same id).

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('Use this when you only have the franchise name'), names the alternative path when you already have a movie, and states a hard exclusion ('Movies only... a TV series name finds nothing'). It even handles the ambiguous-name case with a disambiguation instruction.

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