Get watch provider links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior the annotations cannot convey: empty results for non-supporters and possible rejection under API-key access, which materially affects how an agent should interpret a response.

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 compact sentences with no padding; the core capability is front-loaded and the caveats follow in a logical order. Every clause conveys distinct information.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, access caveats, and the empty-result case. It stops short of describing the link payload's shape or whether multiple providers per item are returned, which is a minor 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 only 33%, and the description mentions 'movie or show' (mapping loosely to media_type) but says nothing about the provider enum values or the id format. The schema itself does document id with an example and both enums are self-explanatory, so the schema carries most of the load, leaving this at a baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (direct streaming/watch-provider links) scoped to a movie or show, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_media_info, which 'also lists providers.' An agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage conditions: it is a supporter feature, returns empty for non-supporters, and may be rejected for API-key access. It also names get_media_info as an alternative provider source, though it does not say explicitly when to prefer that alternative.

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