get_movies_by_id_people

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 agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free read. The description adds the resource-level detail (returns people for a movie) and mentions the 'extended' parameter as optional, but does not disclose any rate limits, authentication requirements, or specifics about what 'extended' returns. With annotations covering safety, 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 exceptionally concise and well-structured. It leads with the purpose, then gives the HTTP endpoint, and then lists the arguments with terse but sufficient explanations. There is no fluff or redundant text; every sentence earns its place.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (so return details are not needed), the description omits crucial context about the 'extended' parameter (what it expands) and does not mention pagination or auth requirements. Given the small number of parameters and the existence of an output schema, the description is adequate but not thorough. The ambiguity around 'extended' is a notable 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'id: The id/slug of the resource' and 'extended: Extended information to include in the response.' This gives basic meaning but is vague, especially for 'extended,' which could be any set of additional fields. It does not state valid values or that 'extended' is optional beyond the default null, though that is implied by the schema. The description adds value beyond the schema but leaves room for interpretation.

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 opens with 'Get all people for a movie,' which clearly states the verb (get), the resource (all people), and the scope (for a movie). It also provides the explicit HTTP endpoint, which removes any ambiguity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_shows_by_id_people (people for shows) and get_people_by_id_movies (movies for a person), even without explicitly naming them.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives. It only states that it retrieves people for a movie, which implies it's for movies rather than shows, but does not explicitly say 'use this for movies, not shows' or mention any alternative tools. There is no exclusionary or comparative language.

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