get_movie_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that the response is 'full, unpaged' and includes all event types including failures. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent important expectations about completeness and potential payload size.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The key distinguishing facts ('full, unpaged', 'for one movie', event types) appear first, and the purpose statement is a useful second sentence.

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 relatively simple read-only tool with a fully documented schema, the description provides the essential context: scope, completeness, and use case. It does not describe return shape or ordering, but no output schema exists and those details are not essential for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that movie_id scopes the history to one movie but adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get the full, unpaged history for one movie.' It further specifies the content ('every grab, import, rename and failure') and gives the intended purpose. This clearly distinguishes it from broader tools like get_history by scoping to a single movie.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use this to explain why a movie has the file it has.' This gives an agent strong contextual guidance. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, but the single-movie scoping and purpose are sufficient for most routing decisions.

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