get_content_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions validation errors and 'content not found' in the Raises section, which adds useful behavioral context about failure modes. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format beyond 'MediaData', leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections for Args, Returns, and Raises. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description covers the basics (purpose, parameters, errors) but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'MediaData' contains or provide deeper behavioral insights (e.g., caching, performance), which would help the agent use it effectively in complex scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'content_id' as a 'Unique content identifier' and 'content_type' with allowed values ('scene', 'movie', or 'jav'), adding clear meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't detail format constraints (e.g., ID structure) or provide examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Get complete details for a specific content item by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('content item'), and key constraint ('by ID'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_performer_details' or the various search tools, which would require a 5.

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 by specifying 'by ID' and listing content types, suggesting this is for retrieving known items rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like the search tools or provide exclusions, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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