get_movie_by_movie_id_recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP GET method and path, which is useful but not substantial. It doesn't describe pagination behavior, default page, or response format beyond what annotations imply.

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 concise and well-structured, using a clear format for the endpoint and args. It front-loads the purpose and avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could add more detail without becoming bloated.

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 read-only tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential request details but omits critical behavioral context like pagination defaults, language code format, or how recommendations are derived. It's adequate for a simple call but leaves an agent without full clarity on expected parameters and response.

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. It lists the three parameters (movie_id, page, language) and their roles as path or query, but provides no additional semantics—no explanation of what page controls, what language format is expected, or any constraints. This is minimal added value beyond the schema's property names.

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 the tool gets recommended movies, which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly relates to movie recommendations, distinguishing it from similar tools like get_movie_by_movie_id_similar and get_tv_by_tv_id_recommendations, though it doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like get_movie_by_movie_id_similar. The context of when to use recommendations is only implicit in the name and description.

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