Get item state

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 100-item batch ceiling and enumerates the four state categories returned, which is useful context, but says nothing about authentication requirements, partial-failure behavior for mixed media types, or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the returned fields, the entity types, and the batch cap with zero filler. Every clause carries information the agent needs before calling.

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 three required parameters and no output schema, the description does well to enumerate the four state categories returned, but it omits the response structure per item and whether all four states are always present. For a batch tool that could return 100 heterogeneous objects, that leaves a meaningful gap.

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 67%, with media_type undocumented in the schema, so the description's mention of 'movies, shows or episodes' partially compensates for that gap. However it adds nothing about the provider/ID-type pairing (TMDb integers vs MDBList strings) or why episodes are restricted to tmdb, leaving the agent to read the 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 names a specific verb (get) and a compound resource (watched, rated, collected and watchlist state) plus the entity types it accepts, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It is implicitly distinguishable from narrower siblings such as get_ratings or get_watchlist because it aggregates all four states in one call, but it never states that differentiation explicitly.

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 a batch status-lookup use case via 'up to 100', but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. With 30+ siblings including get_ratings, get_watchlist, and get_media_info, an agent must infer on its own why it should call this aggregated tool instead.

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