get_title_credits

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: default ordering puts cast first, cast entries carry characters, and results are paginated via a cursor chain.

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 capability statement is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a tight Args list with no filler. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic ('Omit for everyone, cast first') but every line earns its place.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four inputs are covered. The only small gap is that it doesn't say whether non-cast categories include characters or role labels, but that is minor for a filtered list tool.

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%, so the description must carry the load — and it does, documenting all four parameters including the allowed category values (director, writer, actor, actress, producer, composer, cinematographer, editor) and how cursor chains from the previous page. This is materially more than the schema conveys.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource ('List who worked on a title') plus the cast-character nuance, which separates it conceptually from the inverse get_name_credits. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It gives useful in-tool guidance — omit category to get everyone with cast first, and use next_cursor for the next page — which is genuine usage help. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_name_credits, get_title, or advanced_title_search, so routing between siblings is left to inference.

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