New releases

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and open-world reach. The description adds behavior annotations cannot express: payload asymmetry between sources, with Filimo returning year, rating and summary while Namava returns only title and kind. It stops short of stating pagination or ordering guarantees for merged results.

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 the core action and ordering, then usage triggers, then alternatives. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value information, and it does by differentiating Filimo and Namava payloads and pointing to vod_title for the missing fields. Combined with usage routing and annotation-covered safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 all three parameters are documented with enums and defaults, so the baseline is 3. The description earns an extra point by explaining that the site parameter changes the shape of results (two lists under 'both', thinner Namava payload), which is semantics the schema does not convey.

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 action (list newest titles added) against named resources (Filimo and Namava) with an explicit ordering rule (most recent first). This is clearly distinct from vod_featured and vod_search without needing to open 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?

Gives a concrete trigger phrase ("what is new on Filimo/Namava") and explicitly routes two alternative intents elsewhere: vod_title for fuller details and vod_featured for front-page promotions. Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are present.

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