overseerr_movie_requests

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it reveals meaningful behavioral traits: pagination defaults (take=7, skip=0), the default of 'all' for invalid status values, and the expected date format for start_date. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the response structure, so it is not fully transparent.

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 compact and well-structured: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a clean Args list with per-parameter explanations. Every line adds value, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 operation with four optional parameters, the description covers all parameter semantics and pagination behavior. However, since there is no output schema, the lack of a description of the returned payload means the agent may not know the exact fields 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter's semantics: valid status values, date format, and pagination defaults. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type and default declarations.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as a 'paginated list of movie requests' with filter arguments, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like `overseerr_tv_requests` that handle TV requests. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 clearly implies usage for listing movie requests based on the resource name and filter arguments, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as `overseerr_tv_requests` for TV requests. This provides clear context without exclusions, thus meeting the 'clear context' level.

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