movie_trailers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the tool returns trailer URLs with qualities and regions, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not mention error behavior, handling of missing/invalid film IDs, or data limitations.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' block is useful and non-redundant, though it could have been integrated into the main sentence without loss.

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?

For a simple single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks sibling differentiation and edge-case guidance, but it covers the essential call semantics: what the tool returns and what film_id means.

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 for parameters is 0%, so the description must define the parameter itself. 'MovieGlu numeric film id' adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare integer type, clarifying both the source and expected format of film_id.

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 a specific output ('Trailer URLs') and scope ('for one film'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from related movie tools, but the focus on trailers is unambiguous enough to avoid confusion.

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 no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like movie_details or search_movies. It implies usage through 'for one film' but never states exclusions or conditions for selecting this tool.

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