seerr_get_person_combined_credits

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the safety profile is covered, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that. It does not mention what data is returned (e.g., cast and crew roles), how language affects results, or any rate limits or permissions. The description merely restates the function without enriching the agent's understanding beyond the annotation.

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 extraordinarily brief (three words), but this brevity sacrifices critical detail. It under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameter semantics, making it structurally inadequate for an AI agent despite being concise. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the single sentence provides minimal value.

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?

Although an output schema exists and readOnlyHint is provided, the description is too sparse to fully contextualize the tool within the broader API. It does not explain the concept of 'combined credits' (e.g., aggregation of movie and TV appearances), how this endpoint differs from related person endpoints, or the meaning of the language parameter. These gaps prevent a complete understanding of the tool's role and use cases.

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 0%, and the description mentions neither person_id nor language. The agent must rely on parameter names alone, which are only partially self-explanatory. The description adds no semantic value to the parameters, leaving the purpose of 'language' and the exact nature of 'person_id' ambiguous.

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 'Get combined credits' clearly identifies the operation (get) and the resource (combined credits), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'seerr_get_person' that focus on person details. However, it lacks any elaboration on what 'combined credits' means in this context, relying heavily on the tool name to imply the person association.

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 such as 'seerr_get_person' or other credit-related endpoints. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and sibling context.

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