discover_films

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context such as defaults (TMDB service, pagination defaults), constraints (max_results: 100), and error conditions (raises ValueError, RuntimeError, ConnectionError). However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or data freshness, leaving some gaps for a mutation-free tool.

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 with sections for Args, Returns, and Raises, making it easy to parse. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though the initial sentence could be more front-loaded with key information, and some details in the Returns section might be redundant if an output schema exists.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (6 optional parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers parameters thoroughly, includes return format details (though output schema may handle this), and mentions error conditions. Minor gaps include lack of sibling tool differentiation and some behavioral aspects like rate limits.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully compensate. It comprehensively documents all 6 parameters with clear explanations, examples (e.g., '2024', 'en'), enumerated options for sort_by, defaults, and constraints (max: 100). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 'discovers films' with optional filters like genre, release year, language, and sorting preferences, which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'discover_television' or 'list_genres', which would be needed for a score of 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 through the mention of 'optional filters' and references 'list_genres' to find genre IDs, providing some context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'discover_television' or 'categorize_genres', and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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