mdl_titles_get_credits

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that — no note on what the credit list contains, ordering, or result size.

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?

It is certainly short and front-loaded with the scope prefix "Titles:". But the brevity comes from omission rather than efficiency — every word present is a restatement of the name.

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?

No output schema exists and the description does not describe the return shape or what a credit record contains. For a read tool with an ambiguous resource term and an undocumented id parameter, this is not enough to call it correctly.

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% for a required title_id that accepts either a positive integer or a slug string. The description says nothing about which form to pass, whether a slug or numeric id is preferred, or that the id must reference an existing title.

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?

"Titles: get credits." restates the tool name almost verbatim, so it functions as a tautology rather than an explanation. It does not say what "credits" means (cast? crew? staff roles?) or how this differs from siblings like mdl_titles_get_reviews or mdl_users_get_person_credits.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. An agent gets zero routing help for choosing between this and the many other mdl_titles_get_* siblings.

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