list_history_movie

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

Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description only needs to add context beyond that. It adds the HTTP GET endpoint and query-parameter placement, but it does not describe pagination, result size, ordering, or any other runtime behavior.

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 short, front-loaded with 'Read History,' and structured clearly with the endpoint and argument list. The Args block is somewhat repetitive of the schema, but the whole text is free of padding.

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 tool with three optional parameters and many sibling list tools, the description lacks enough context to make an informed selection or construct a precise filtered call. The output schema covers return values, so the missing piece is usage and parameter semantics rather than response format.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates parameter names and labels each as a 'Query parameter.' It does not explain acceptable event_type values, the meaning of include_movie, or how the parameters narrow the returned history.

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 names a clear verb and resource ('Read History') and the endpoint identifies movie-scoped history. However, it does not explicitly state that this is movie-specific history or contrast it with list_history and list_history_since, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of how this differs from the closely related list_history or list_history_since tools, nor any exclusions or alternative routing criteria.

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