get_movies_by_id_related

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 valuable behavioral context about pagination: default limits, endpoint-specific maximums, and clamping behavior when limits exceed the cap. This goes beyond what annotations provide. However, it doesn't elaborate on what 'extended' includes or the return structure, but the output schema covers that.

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. It opens with the purpose, lists the endpoint, and then provides a clear parameter list with brief explanations. Every sentence adds value; there is no filler. The pagination details are compact yet informative. It is front-loaded with the main action.

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 straightforward read-only endpoint with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers all parameters and pagination nuances. The only gap is that it doesn't define what 'related' means (e.g., based on genre, user preferences), which could affect expectations, but it's not necessary for invoking the tool correctly. The output schema provides return details.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters. It covers all four: id ('The id/slug of the resource'), extended ('Extended information to include in the response'), page ('The page number to retrieve'), and limit (with detailed clamping behavior). This adds meaning beyond the bare type definitions, though 'extended' remains vague. The explanation of limit behavior is particularly helpful.

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 purpose: 'Get related movies.' It includes the endpoint path, which adds specificity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_movies_by_id_people or get_movies_by_id_ratings, though the name and description make it unambiguous. The verb-resource pairing is clear.

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need related movies) but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. There is no contrast with sibling endpoints or mention of specific conditions that would make this tool preferable. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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