Discover trending media

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Nothing is requested or added'. Beyond that it discloses genuinely non-obvious backend routing: Seerr answers when configured (TMDB ratings), otherwise genre/year/min_rating fall back to a local IMDb dataset with different rating semantics, and similar_to has no fallback at all. That rating-source divergence directly changes how min_rating behaves and would be invisible otherwise.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose in the first clause, then progressively narrower caveats. Three sentences with no filler. Dense em-dash phrasing makes it slightly harder to scan than a plain sentence structure would, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, an output schema present, and 89% schema coverage, the description covers the pieces structured data cannot: backend selection, rating provenance, and fallback limits. The one real gap is the unexplained overlap between `kind` (movie/series) and `media_type` (movie/tv), which an agent must guess between.

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 coverage is 89%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns above that by explaining that min_rating means TMDB's rating under Seerr but IMDb's rating on the dataset fallback, which the schema does not say. It also restates similar_to's exclusivity with genre/year/min_rating, which is already in the schema — though it does not clarify the relationship between the seemingly overlapping `kind` and `media_type` parameters.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — browse films/series by genre, year and minimum rating, or find similar titles — and draws the sharp line against sibling tools with 'what exists rather than what you have'. An agent can distinguish this from get_library, search_media and lookup_media without opening schemas.

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?

Gives clear context: use it for discovery (unowned catalog content), and use similar_to when you have a known title as an anchor. It also states the condition under which similar_to is unavailable. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative (e.g. lookup_media or search_media) for when the goal is a known title rather than browsing.

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