get_movies_by_id_watchnow_by_country

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint and hints at query parameter usage, but does not disclose response shape, pagination, or authentication requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 text is short, but the Args block largely duplicates the schema. The endpoint path is already inferable from the tool nameements. Each parameter line does not earn its place, especially the meaningless links/extended entries.

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 tool with 4 parameters and 0% schema coverage, this description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'watch now sources' includes, what values are valid for links and extended, or how the country parameter interacts with the response. The output schema exists but is not shown, so the description cannot lean on it.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries full responsibility. It usefully explains id ('id/slug of the resource') and country ('2 character country code'), but links and extended are merely repeated names with vacuous descriptions ('Query parameter', 'Extended information to include in the response').

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 states a clear action ('Get movie watch now sources') and identifies the resource (movie). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_shows_by_id_watchnow_by_country or get_watchnow_sources_by_country_code; only the tool name makes the movie/country scope explicit.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is a per-movie, per-country lookup, nor does it compare with the many similar watchnow siblings.

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