movie_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 of behavioral disclosure. It lists the metadata fields returned but does not mention error behavior, rate limits, authentication, or any side effects. For a read-only tool, it lacks transparency about what happens when film_id is invalid or not found.

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 concise, front-loading the core purpose in one sentence followed by a compact Args block. It wastes no words and is easy to scan, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit optionality notes.

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 has a moderate complexity with two parameters and an output schema, but the description does not indicate that size_category is optional (default medium) or describe error handling. Since annotations are absent, more context on potential failure modes or prerequisites would be needed for full completeness.

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 compensates well. It explains film_id as a 'MovieGlu numeric film id' sourced from search/listing tools, and size_category with explicit allowed values and comma-separation for multiple. This adds meaning beyond the bare parameter names, though it omits the default value for size_category.

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 provides 'Full metadata for one film' and enumerates specific content: synopsis, cast, directors, genres, ratings, trailers, images, and nationwide show dates. This distinctly separates it from siblings like movie_trailers or movie_showtimes, making its purpose 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 gives usage context by noting film_id comes 'from search / listing tools', implying the tool is meant to be used after searching. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like movie_trailers or movie_showtimes, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites beyond that hint.

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