get_collection_by_collection_id

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 safety profile is well covered. The description reinforces this with the 'GET' verb and reveals the endpoint path shape, but adds nothing beyond that — no mention of auth requirements, error behavior, or response nuances, though an output schema does exist.

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 — five short lines with the core statement 'Get collection details' front-loaded and the endpoint shown before the Args block. The Args section partially restates schema content but earns its place by adding path/query placement that the schema omits.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: purpose, endpoint, and parameter roles are all present. The notable gaps are domain context (what a collection is) and language value semantics, which prevent it from being fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden, and it does add real value by explicitly marking collection_id as a path parameter and language as a query parameter — placement information the schema alone cannot convey. However, it stops short of explaining what language values look like (e.g., ISO codes) or what effect the language parameter has, leaving the agent guessing at acceptable formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('collection details'), and the endpoint GET /api/v1/collection/{collectionId} clearly scopes it to fetching a single collection by ID, distinguishing it from sibling getters like get_movie_by_movie_id or get_tv_by_tv_id. However, 'details' is vague — it does not explain what a collection is in this domain or what fields are returned, which stops it short of full 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to call this endpoint versus alternatives — no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a collection ID from a search or list call), no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. An agent must infer when this tool is appropriate purely from the name and endpoint.

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