Film profile

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

Annotations already grant read-only, idempotent, non-destructive access, so the lower bar applies. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: the text is served as Gamefa has it, with mostly English names but Persian descriptions, which warns the agent to expect mixed-language content in the result.

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?

Two short sentences: the payload first, the input/language caveat second — well front-loaded with no filler. The line break mid-sentence is slightly awkward but costs nothing in comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so by listing the fields an agent will receive, plus a language caveat. What is missing is minor: no indication of error behavior for a bad or unknown slug, and no note on whether related items (cast/director as links) are included.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the slug with its pattern and a source/example. The description's 'slugs come from gf_films' largely restates that, adding only provenance emphasis rather than new syntax or validation detail, so baseline 3 is right.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Get one film or series profile') and immediately enumerates the payload (IMDb and user score, genres, cast, director, writers, countries, runtime, release date). Naming 'one film' plus the pointer to gf_films clearly separates it from the sibling list tool.

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?

States that slugs come from gf_films, which effectively tells the agent to call the list/search tool first and this one second. It stops short of naming an explicit exclusion (e.g. when to prefer gf_films or gf_popular instead), so it is clear context without full routing rules.

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