get_movies_streaming_by_period

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral detail about pagination: omitted limits default low, and provided limits are clamped rather than rejected. It does not cover rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior for invalid filter values, but the annotation safety profile lowers the burden.

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 a structured, endpoint-first parameter list, and most entries earn their place. It is not overly long for 17 parameters, but the repeated 'Query parameter' phrasing is filler and the `watchnow` block could be tightened without losing information.

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?

The tool has many parameters and no schema descriptions, so the free-text description must supply critical usage knowledge. It covers parameter names and a few values, but leaves the required `period` indeterminate and does not explain filter syntax for dates, genres, countries, ratings, or certifications. An agent would likely struggle to construct a valid first request.

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 full burden for parameter semantics. It names all 17 parameters and gives some useful details, especially for `watchnow` and `limit`. However, the required `period` parameter is only described as 'Path parameter', and most filters like `genres`, `years`, and `dates` lack formats or allowed value patterns.

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 'Get streaming movies' and gives the endpoint path `GET /movies/streaming/{period}`, making the verb and resource clear. It distinguishes this from sibling endpoints like `get_movies_watched_by_period` by identifying 'streaming' as the resource category, though it does not define what 'streaming' or 'period' precisely mean.

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 about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools. The description only states what the endpoint does, not when an agent should select it over alternatives such as `get_shows_streaming_by_period` or `get_movies_watched_by_period`.

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