get_discover_movies_studio_by_studio_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the main safety traits. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is useful but not behavioral detail like pagination or response shape. It doesn't contradict annotations, and adds minimal value beyond them.

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 very short: a purpose sentence, the endpoint, and a terse arg list. It's efficient and front-loaded, with no fluff. However, the arg list is a bit unstructured, but overall it's appropriately concise.

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 simplicity (3 params, 1 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks any context about expected behavior (e.g., that it returns a list), pagination defaults, or any prerequisites. It's adequate for a basic GET but leaves some gaps.

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 labels parameters as 'path' or 'query' without explaining their meaning, valid formats (e.g., language code), or how to obtain studio_id. This adds little beyond the schema's own property names and types.

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 'Discover movies by studio' which clearly identifies the action (discover), the resource (movies), and the filter (by studio). It also provides the endpoint. This is clear and distinct from siblings like get_studio_by_studio_id, though it doesn't explicitly mention the distinction.

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 on when to use this tool versus other discover endpoints (e.g., by genre, keyword). The purpose is implied by the name, but the description doesn't mention alternatives or selection criteria, so an agent gets no explicit usage direction.

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