list_movies_anticipated

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

The description adds valuable runtime behavior around pagination: it explains default limits, endpoint maximums, and clamping behavior for the `limit` parameter. It also details acceptable values for `watchnow`, which goes beyond the schema's bare type. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them; this additional context merits a 4.

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 structured with a purpose statement, endpoint, and an args list. It avoids fluff and presents the most important info (endpoint and pagination) early. The watchnow options are verbose but necessary for unambiguous values. Inconsistent indentation and the redundant 'Query parameter' tags are minor concerns, so a 4.

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 output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. However, the description leaves ambiguous how to format filter parameters and doesn't clarify the distinction between anticipated and popular/trending. For a simple GET list with many optional, loosely-described filters, it's adequate but not comprehensive – thus a 3.

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 of explaining 16 parameters. It gives genuine semantics for `watchnow`, `limit`, `page`, and the three `ignore_*` flags, but the majority of filter parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, dates, runtimes, countries, certifications) are only labeled 'Query parameter' – a placeholder, not an explanation. This partial coverage is not enough for a 16-parameter endpoint, so a 3 is warranted.

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 the most anticipated movies,' clearly identifying the verb and resource. It includes the endpoint path, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as list_media_anticipated or list_shows_anticipated. Despite that, the purpose is unambiguously about anticipated movies, so this is a 4.

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 is provided on when to choose this tool over the many sibling list tools (e.g., list_movies_popular, list_movies_hot, list_media_anticipated). The description only repeats the endpoint and parameter definitions. An agent is left to infer the distinction, so this scores 2.

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