get_movies_watched_by_period

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful pagination behavior: low default limit (often 10), cap at endpoint maximum (often 250), and clamping rather than rejection. It also exposes the HTTP GET method, going beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose and then a compact args list. The pagination note is somewhat verbose but provides necessary behavioral detail. No filler or repetitive content.

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?

Output schema covers return shape and annotations cover safety. However, the description doesn't define valid period values, what extended includes, or how ignore flags interact with a 'watched' endpoint. For a 7-param tool with 0% schema coverage, these are meaningful gaps.

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 must explain parameters. It gives a clear, detailed explanation for limit (defaults, maximums, clamping) and page, but period is only 'Path parameter' and the ignore_* flags simply restate their names. extended is vague ('Extended information to include'), so compensation is only partial.

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 opens with 'Get the most watched movies,' a specific verb+resource statement, and the endpoint path confirms 'movies/watched/{period}'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling endpoints like get_movies_collected_by_period or get_movies_played_by_period because the resource and action are 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 explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The only usage signal is the name and endpoint, which imply this tool is for retrieving watched movie stats for a period. It does not mention when to prefer this over collected/played/favorited siblings, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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