get_movie_by_movie_id_similar

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

Annotations fully cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower here. However, the description adds almost nothing beyond the endpoint URL and parameter labels that restate the schema. No behavioral context is provided about pagination behavior, language code format, response size, or what criteria drive the 'similar' selection.

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 and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, followed only by the endpoint and a minimal Args list. No wasted prose. It loses a point because the Args block largely restates what the input schema already provides in structured form.

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?

The output schema covers return-value structure and annotations cover safety, so those gaps are filled. But the tool lacks any sibling-routing guidance despite having a near-twin in get_movie_by_movie_id_recommendations, and the language parameter's accepted format is undefined. For a tool with two very similar siblings, this is a meaningful completeness gap.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description needed to compensate for the missing parameter documentation. The Args section does add the path-versus-query distinction, which the schema does not convey, but it fails to define value semantics: what language format is expected ('en-US' vs 'en'), whether page is 1-indexed, or what movie_id refers to beyond being a path parameter. It labels parameters without explaining them.

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 one-line summary 'Get similar movies' states a clear verb and resource, and the sibling names (get_movie_by_movie_id, get_movie_by_movie_id_ratings, get_movie_by_movie_id_recommendations) make it distinguishable at a glance for the most part. It loses a point because 'similar' is never defined relative to the nearly-identical 'recommendations' endpoint, leaving ambiguity about what each returns.

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 alternatives. The closest sibling, get_movie_by_movie_id_recommendations, is never mentioned, and no conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria are provided. An agent must guess which of the two near-identical endpoints returns the desired result set.

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