Browse by genre

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real behavioral context by disclosing that Filimo rows carry year, rating, IMDb and summary while Namava rows only carry title, kind and id. It does not discuss rate limits or failure behavior when a genre string is unrecognized, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then examples, then return-shape differences, then next steps and the exclusion — a sensible priority order with no filler. The telegraphic fragments ("Next: vod_title or vod_episodes") are dense but each clause carries distinct 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?

For a 7-parameter browse tool with no output schema, the description covers what rows look like per site and which sibling to use next, which is the information an agent actually needs to sequence calls. Pagination depth and the genre-name list are delegated to the schema and vod_genres, which is reasonable but leaves genre lookup slightly implicit.

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 100%, so every one of the 7 parameters is already documented in the schema, including that sort and country are Filimo-only and that Namava ignores kind. The description only echoes the Filimo-only nature of sort and country filters, adding no syntax, format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list movies and series of one genre) plus the two catalogs it covers, and immediately distinguishes itself from vod_title, vod_episodes and vod_collections by name. An agent can tell this apart from the search/browse siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives quoted example intents ("best comedy series on Filimo", "Iranian dramas", "new documentaries"), names the follow-up calls (vod_title, vod_episodes), and explicitly routes themed lists (IMDb top 250, Oscar, kids, coming soon) to vod_collections instead. That is an explicit when/when-not/alternative mapping.

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