Get media info

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld, so the description isn't burdened with the safety profile. It adds real behavioral context beyond them: recommendations cap at ~8 items and are sparse for niche titles — an agent-visible expectation about result quality. It omits what happens on an invalid/mismatched provider ID.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core capability front-loaded and the optional feature second. No filler, though the quoted 'recommendations' phrasing is slightly awkward.

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 compensates by naming the main return fields (ratings, scores, streams, IDs). With three required params and a clear primary path, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the secondary append values and media_type semantics are left thin.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates: it explains that the identifier is provider-specific and details the 'recommendations' value of append_to_response. It says nothing about media_type (including the non-obvious 'any' enum) or the other append values (episode_ratings, extra, keyword, review).

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?

Specific verb + resource ('Get full details for a movie or show') plus an enumeration of what's returned (ratings, scores, streams, IDs). The 'by provider ID' scoping implicitly separates it from the sibling search_media, though no sibling is named 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 'by provider ID' framing implies the precondition (you must already have an ID, otherwise use search_media), and it explains the optional recommendations add-on. But no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative is given, so usage must be inferred.

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