list_certifications_movies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, read-only nature is covered. The description adds the endpoint path, which confirms the retrieval action but provides no additional behavioral context such as response format or pagination. Given the annotations, the description adds minimal value beyond what's already known.

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 concise with a single sentence followed by the endpoint. It's front-loaded with the action and resource, and the endpoint provides a direct reference. It's not overly verbose, though the endpoint might be considered redundant but adds clarity.

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 zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is relatively complete. The agent knows what the tool does and that it's safe. However, there's no mention of what the output represents (e.g., a list of certification ratings) beyond the schema, and no context on the availability or regional variations, which could be relevant in a media database 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema has no propertiesaint to document. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters to clarify. Thus, the description is sufficient.

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 'Get movie certifications' with a clear verb and resource, and the accompanying endpoint clarifies the action. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool list_certifications_shows, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can distinguish the two.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_certifications_shows or get_certifications_by_type. The context of use (e.g., to retrieve certification ratings for movies) is implied but not explicitly stated, and there are no exclusions or alternative suggestions.

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