Similar titles

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world call, so the description's added value is the provider divergence: Filimo returns related rows (same actors, writer, genre, decade) plus featured actors and writers, while Namava returns a single recommendation list. That is real behavioral context an agent cannot get from annotations, though pagination/truncation behavior is not mentioned.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by sequencing and chaining guidance in two short sentences. The parenthetical provider caveats are dense but each carries information; only light trimming would improve it.

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 does the expected work by sketching what each provider returns, including the extra related-row and actor/writer payloads on Filimo. It is not exhaustive about the shape of the recommendation list itself, but enough for an agent to call and interpret it.

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% — both `ref` (with a regex, examples and source tools) and `limit` (default 12, max 20) are fully documented in the schema. The description only adds that a `ref` can also come from a vod_title result, which is marginal but slightly extends the schema's stated provenance.

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 similar titles for one movie or series) and qualifies it across the two providers Filimo and Namava, with the colloquial gloss "viewers also watch". It is clearly distinct from vod_title (which resolves one title) and vod_search (which finds titles by query).

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 after vod_title when the user wants more like it" gives an explicit trigger and ordering, and "Take a `ref` from the result to vod_title" documents the chaining in both directions. It stops short of naming when not to use it, e.g. browsing a whole genre, which is what vod_browse/vod_genres are for.

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