seerr_get_movie_recommendations

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, but the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, response format, or how recommendations are derived. It merely restates the resource without enriching the agent's understanding.

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 a single, well-formed sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for the tool's complexity. It is structured acceptably, yet the minimalism crosses into inadequacy, as seen in the 'Process' example.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is far too sparse for a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions. It fails to explain what 'recommended' means, how movie_id influences results, or how pagination works, making the description incomplete for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description had full responsibility to explain parameters, but it mentions none of the three parameters (movie_id, page, language). It fails to convey what movie_id represents or how page and language affect results, leaving the agent blind.

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 clearly states a verb and resource ('Get recommended movies'), making its basic purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_movie_similar' or 'get_tv_recommendations', as 'recommended' is left ambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support for selecting it among the many sibling tools.

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