list_social_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 the HTTP method (GET) and some behavioral context via the parameter names (e.g., ignored items, watch window), but does not disclose pagination, response format, or authorization requirements. It does not contradict 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 description is compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, then a list of arguments. No filler or repetition. Every line carries useful information.

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 six parameters fully described and an output schema present, the tool is functionally callable. However, it lacks contextual information about what 'social' recommendations are, how this endpoint differs from non-social recommendations, or any usage caveats. An agent could easily mistake it for the general recommendations endpoint without more 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Each of the six parameters receives a concise, meaningful explanation: 'extended: Extended information to include in the response', 'limit: Limit the number of results', 'watch_window: The watch window in days for the recommendations', and the three ignore flags are self-explanatory. The meaning of 'extended' remains vague, but others are clear.

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 social movie recommendations' – a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes from non-social recommendation endpoints like list_recommendations_movies via the word 'social', but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling list_social_recommendations_shows. Still, the resource is unambiguous.

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 about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_recommendations_movies or list_social_recommendations_shows. The description only states what it does and lists parameters, leaving the selection decision entirely to the agent.

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