get_movies_collected_by_period

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the annotations, especially the pagination behavior: defaults vary, low default limits, and higher limits are clamped rather than rejected. It also discloses the ignore_* filter semantics, which helps an agent understand how results may be narrowed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args list is orderly and each parameter has a brief line. The endpoint line repeats the tool name somewhat, but overall the description earns its length without unnecessary fluff.

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 7-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description leaves critical gaps. The required period parameter lacks any guidance on accepted values, and extended is undefined. An agent could not confidently construct a correct call purely from this description. The output schema exists, so return format is covered, but input semantics are not complete enough.

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 must compensate. It lists all seven parameters and gives meaningful details for page and limit, including clamping behavior. However, the required 'period' parameter is only described as 'Path parameter' with no valid values or format, and 'extended' is vague ('Extended information to include'), leaving important parameter semantics underspecified.

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 specific action and resource: 'Get the most collected movies.' combined with the endpoint 'GET /movies/collected/{period}'. This makes the tool's purpose identifiable and distinguishes it from movie 'watched', 'favorited', or 'played' period endpoints, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'most collected movies' and the period-based endpoint, but the description never explicitly states when to use this tool versus related endpoints like get_movies_watched_by_period or get_shows_collected_by_period. An agent can infer the use case, but there is no direct guidance or exclusion.

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