list_recommendations_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 safety profile is covered. The description adds detail about filtering behavior (ignore_watched, ignore_collected, watchnow, etc.) but does not disclose pagination, default limits, ordering, or response shape. The added context is useful but not rich.

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 compact and front-loads the core action and endpoint. The parameter list is concise, but the repetitive 'Query parameter.' entries add little value. The watchnow block is verbose but necessary because it documents valid enum-like values.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the endpoint and key parameters. It is incomplete on value formats for dates, years, genres, ratings, runtimes, countries, and certifications, and it does not clarify limit behavior or extended values. An agent would still face uncertainty when constructing arguments.

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 for 16 parameters. The watchnow parameter is thoroughly explained with valid values, and the ignore_* booleans are self-explanatory. However, genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, and certifications are only labeled 'Query parameter', adding minimal semantic value beyond their names.

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 recommendations' and states the endpoint GET /recommendations/movies/. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from list_recommendations_shows by name. It could be stronger if it explicitly contrasted with the shows sibling, but the verb+resource is clear.

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?

The description implicitly covers usage by listing all parameters and giving detailed guidance for watchnow values. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over list_recommendations_shows or other browsing endpoints, nor does it state when not to use it. The intended use is inferable but not stated.

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