get_movies_by_id_releases_by_country

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and nothing in the description contradicts it. The description adds only the GET request shape and path, not deeper behavioral context like auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 well-structured: a one-line purpose, the exact endpoint, and an Args list. Every element earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple read-only tool with a documented output schema, strong annotations, and only two described parameters, the description is largely complete. It lacks usage context or examples, but the endpoint, parameters, and nested-id/country scoping are clear enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameter meaning. It usefully explains that id is 'the id/slug of the resource' and that country is a '2 character country code', going beyond the bare 'string' schema. It could be stronger with an example or explicit ISO country code standard, but it is sufficient for these two scalar parameters.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get all movie releases') and includes the exact endpoint 'GET /movies/{id}/releases/{country}', which clarifies the scope. It does not quite reach 5 because the plain-language summary does not explicitly say the releases are scoped to a single movie and country, leaving that to the endpoint/args.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as get_movies_by_id_watchnow_by_country or get_movies_by_id_ratings. The description simply states what it fetches, with no context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions.

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