list_movies_trending

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds contextual behavior beyond annotations by explaining pagination defaults and clamping ("Defaults and maximums vary by endpoint... higher values are clamped rather than rejected") and detailing watchnow value semantics. This is useful behavioral context on top of the structured hints.

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 opens with a one-sentence summary and the endpoint, then systematically lists each argument. The length is justified by 16 parameters, and each bullet is short. There is minor verbosity/inconsistent wording, such as "Use "subscriptions_all" streaming..." missing the word 'for', but overall it is organized and front-loaded.

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 16-parameter endpoint with an output schema, the description covers all parameters and includes pagination behavior, but it leaves meaningful gaps: valid values for 'extended' are unspecified, filter formats (dates, years, ratings, genres) are not explained, and the notion of 'trending' is undefined. Because an output schema exists, the missing return-value details are less critical, but the filter semantics are still incomplete.

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 carries the burden of parameter documentation. It does name every parameter and gives real meaning to page, limit, watchnow, extended, and the ignore_* flags. However, nine parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, certifications) receive only the unhelpful annotation "Query parameter.", leaving their formats and allowed values undocumented.

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 a specific verb and resource: "Get trending movies." and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint "GET /movies/trending". This distinguishes it from sibling list endpoints like list_movies_popular or list_shows_trending by the 'movies' + 'trending' scope, though it does not explicitly contrast those alternatives.

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 list_movies_hot, list_movies_popular, list_movies_boxoffice, or list_media_trending. The only usage cue is the tool name and the one-line summary, which merely implies a trending-movies use case. No exclusion or alternative-selection criteria are provided.

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