seerr_list_certifications_movie

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds no additional behavioral details. It does not explain the response format, pagination, or any side effects. Since there is no extra context beyond the annotation, the description's contribution is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool with no parameters and clear purpose.

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?

The tool is simple, read-only, and has an output schema that covers return values. The description, while minimal, is sufficient for the agent to understand the operation. However, it could have noted that this returns a list (as the name suggests) or mentioned the TV counterpart for clarity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description need not explain parameter details. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description neither adds nor detracts from schema coverage, which is trivially complete.

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 the exact action ('Get') and resource ('movie certifications'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool for TV certifications. Even though it is terse, it is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for retrieving movie certifications but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives. It does not mention the TV counterpart or any exclusions, so the agent must infer usage from the name.

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