get_users_by_id_history_movies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: pagination defaults and clamping ('a low default limit is applied (often 10)... higher values are clamped rather than rejected'), date format requirements ('Must be formatted as "YYYY-MM-DD"'), and the full set of watchnow value semantics. 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 Args list is organized and front-loads the core statement, but six parameters redundantly repeat 'Query parameter' without adding informationable, consuming space that could be compressed. The watchnow enumeration is lengthy yet necessary. Overall it is somewhat verbose but structurally acceptable.

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?

With 16 parameters and no schema descriptions, the description leaves several filtering parameters (genres, ratings, countries, certifications) undefined. It does cover critical behaviors like pagination clamping, date formatting, id semantics, and watchnow values, and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the underdocumented filters create gaps for correct invocation.

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 bears full responsibility for parameter meaning. It significantly compensates by explaining id (slug or 'me'), watchnow (all allowed values listed), start_at/end_at format, and page/limit defaults and caps. However, several filter parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, etc.) are only labeled 'Query parameter' with no additional format or usage guidance, limiting the compensation.

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 movie watched history,' which states a specific verb (Get) and resource (movie watched history), clearly separating it from sibling history tools like get_users_by_id_history_episodes or get_users_by_id_history_shows. The endpoint path reinforces the resource.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as get_users_by_id_history_shows or get_users_by_id_history_episodes. The only differentiation is embedded in the tool name/endpoint; the description does not mention any exclusions, alternatives, or context-based selection criteria.

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