List genres

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the list is cross-site (Filimo and Namava), Persian names are portable across both, and Filimo-specific filters (sort, country) live in vod_browse rather than here. It stops short of describing the return shape or ordering, which keeps it below 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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to call it, then the accepted name forms. The parenthetical cross-reference to vod_browse earns its place and nothing is repeated from the annotations.

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 zero-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned (genre names plus aliases), which sites are covered, and how to consume the result. No missing prerequisite or return-format gap remains.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does usefully note that site-specific filtering belongs to vod_browse, implicitly clarifying that no filtering arguments exist here.

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 the genre names") and immediately scopes it to what vod_browse accepts for Filimo and Namava, including English aliases. An agent can distinguish this reference-list tool from vod_browse without opening either 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?

"Use before vod_browse when unsure of a genre name" gives an explicit trigger condition and names the sibling tool it feeds. It also resolves the main ambiguity up front by stating that both Persian names and English aliases (comedy, drama) are accepted, so the agent knows what to do with the output.

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