list_credit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety aspects. The description adds the HTTP endpoint and the fact that the arguments are query parameters, which is slightly useful. However, it does not disclose pagination, response format, or any other behavioral traits. Since annotations cover safety, the description adds limited but consistent value, earning a 3.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase, the HTTP endpoint, and a bulleted list of parameters. It is well-structured with the purpose front-loaded, and there is no wasted text. It achieves maximum efficiency for the minimal content it provides.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there, but the description does not explain what the tool actually returns (a list of credits, presumably). It also lacks usage context (when to use vs. get_credit_by_id) and does not clarify the meaning of the parameters. For a low-complexity tool with two optional parameters, this is incomplete but not severely so.

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 compensate. It only states that movie_id and movie_metadata_id are query parameters, which is a minor addition. The schema already provides the parameter names and types, but the description does not explain their purpose or how they filter results. Given the low coverage, the description should provide more semantic context, but it falls short.

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 says 'Read Credit' which indicates a read operation, and the HTTP GET endpoint confirms it. However, it does not explicitly state that this tool lists credits (as opposed to fetching a single credit by ID, which get_credit_by_id would do). The verb and resource are clear, but the scope (list vs. get) is not explicitly stated, and the description does not differentiate it from the sibling get_credit_by_id.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_credit_by_id. It does not mention that this tool is for retrieving multiple credits, potentially filtered by movie_id or movie_metadata_id, while get_credit_by_id is for a specific credit. There is no context about use cases or exclusions.

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