get_movies_by_id_translations

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds useful filter semantics for the language parameter, but does not disclose pagination or return-value behavior beyond what the output schema likely covers.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes only the endpoint and parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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 endpoint with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit note that language is optional and does not position this against sibling translation tools, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, yet the description fully compensates: it explains id as 'The id/slug of the resource' and language as a '2 character language code' filter. This adds meaningful usage detail that the bare schema types do not provide.

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?

Description states exactly what the tool does: 'Get all movie translations' with a specific resource (movies) and endpoint. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling translation endpoints for shows and episodes because of the explicit movie resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_shows_by_id_translations or get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_translations. The resource is implied by the name, but the description does not state selection criteria or exclusions.

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