list_films

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

Annotations already declare this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: rating filters are scoped to Rolle's ratings, genre names must be in Finnish, orderby accepts date/title/rating, and per_page is capped at 100. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose followed by a compact, structured parameter list. Every line earns its place, and the length is justified for an 11-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.

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?

Given the annotational safety profile and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the invocation-relevant details well: filters, ordering, pagination, and rating semantics. Its main gap is not contextualizing the relationship with 'search_films', which is important for correct tool selection.

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 carries the full burden of explaining all 11 parameters, and it does so thoroughly. It clarifies 'year' as recorded by the archive, 'genre' as a Finnish name, 'min_rating' and 'max_rating' as Rolle's ratings out of 10, 'unrated', the allowed values for orderby, and the per_page limit of 100.

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 operation ('List') and the resource ('films'), plus the core capabilities of filtering and ordering. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling 'search_films', which likely overlaps in listing/filtering behavior, so it stops short of full 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 guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives such as 'search_films' or 'get_film'. The description does not state exclusions, preferred use cases, or when another sibling would be more appropriate.

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