get_movies_updates_id_by_start_date

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's job is to add context. It does describe pagination semantics—default limit of 10, maximum of 250, clamping behavior—which is beyond annotations. However, it lacks details about ordering, response format (beyond IDs), or any rate-limit implications, so it only partially transparent.

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, starting with the purpose, then endpoint, then args. It avoids fluff and presents each parameter with a brief explanation. The HTTP path is redundant but harmless. It is well-organized and easy to scan.

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 description covers the core functional details (purpose, parameters, pagination) and the output schema exists, so return values are unnecessary. However, it omits the important distinction from sibling 'updates' endpoints (IDs only vs full data) and doesn't address edge cases like date parsing or rate limits. For a simple list endpoint, it's mostly complete but lacks selection context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden. It provides one-line explanations for start_date (UTC date), page (page number), and limit (number of items with clamping), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. Yet it doesn't specify the exact date format (e.g., YYYY-MM-DD) or default page behavior, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('recently updated movie Trakt IDs'), which is specific enough to distinguish from the broader get_movies_updates_by_start_date tool. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like get_shows_updates_id_by_start_date, leaving some differentiation to the name itself.

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 choose this tool over alternatives. It doesn't mention that this returns only IDs and not full movie details, nor does it reference the sibling get_movies_updates_by_start_date for full updates. The description is purely functional and omits context for selection.

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