get_studio_by_studio_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which is helpful but not behavioral beyond what annotations convey. It does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or response characteristics, but since annotations cover the main concerns, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the endpoint and argument list, which are useful. However, it is overly sparse, bordering on under-specification, though it avoids redundancy and waste.

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 tool has an output schema, yet the description provides no information about what details are returned, how to interpret the response, or any context about the studio ID. There is no mention of authentication, pagination, or related endpoints. For a tool that retrieves specific data, the description is inadequate for an agent to fully understand the call's outcome.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only states 'studio_id: Path parameter', which merely repeats the fact that it's a path parameter without explaining what the ID represents (e.g., TMDb ID, internal ID). It does not add meaningful semantics about the value's meaning or format beyond the schema's type definition.

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 action ('Get movie studio details') and the resource (movie studio). It is specific enough to convey the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling get_discover_movies_studio_by_studio_id, which may serve a similar but distinct use case. The description lacks explicit distinction, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or scenarios where this endpoint is preferred over other studio-related tools like get_discover_movies_studio_by_studio_id. The user is left to infer usage from the name alone.

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