Top Rated Movies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get top rated movies', which implies a read-only operation but lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), or what 'top rated' entails (e.g., sorting criteria, data freshness). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic retrieval.

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 extremely concise with 'Get top rated movies', a single sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. There is no wasted language or redundancy, making it efficient for quick comprehension. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of detail, which is reflected in lower scores for other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a list retrieval with parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like pagination, sorting, or error handling, and fails to differentiate from sibling tools. For a tool with parameters and no structured output documentation, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for 'page' and 'region' parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage, defaults, or interactions. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the description does not compensate but also does not detract from the schema's clarity.

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 'Get top rated movies' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('top rated movies'), making the purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'top rated' means (e.g., based on ratings, popularity, or a specific metric) and does not differentiate from siblings like 'movie_popular' or 'tv_top_rated', which offer similar list functionalities. This makes it vague in distinguishing its exact scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios for usage, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings such as 'movie_popular' (for popularity-based lists) or 'trending_movie_day' (for trending content). Without any context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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