Get film details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the composition of the payload, including embedded download URLs and a per-shot list. It stops short of saying what happens with an invalid slug or how the shot list paginates.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence starting with the verb and resource; the field enumeration is long but each item conveys distinct returned data, so nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so thoroughly by listing the returned attributes. Remaining gaps are minor: error behavior for a bad slug and the interaction between limit/offset for the shot list.

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 67%: slug and limit are documented in the schema (including '0 = metadata only'), while offset has no description anywhere. The description's mention of the 'shot list with per-shot download URLs' contextualizes the limit parameter but adds no syntax or paging detail beyond 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 specific verb and resource ('Get one source film') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: title, year, running time, synopsis, provenance/rights, download URL, and shot list. The singular 'one source film' cleanly separates it from list_sources, and the mention of shot lists distinguishes it from search_clips.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch full details for a single known source. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of the metadata-only path (limit=0) as an alternative to a full shot listing, and no direction toward download or search_clips for related needs.

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