get_film

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by promising a complete record including review, rating, and credits, which helps the agent know it will receive full detail rather than a summary.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and has a clearly separated argument line. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance without repetition or filler.

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?

With a single parameter, clear provenance for the id, and an output schema present, the description covers everything needed to correctly invoke this tool. No return-value explanation is required beyond the promise of full film details.

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 schema only defines id as an integer with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the id is a film id and, crucially, tells the agent where to obtain it (from search_films or list_films), which is essential context the schema lacks.

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 clearly states the tool fetches 'one film in full' and enumerates the contents: review, rating, credits, and every field. This distinguishes it from sibling search/list tools and makes the resource and action 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 argument documentation explicitly tells the agent that the film id comes from search_films or list_films, which implies the intended workflow: search or list first, then fetch full details by id. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the sequencing guidance is strong.

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