Title details

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top: rating fields differ per site (Filimo stars/5 with vote count and IMDb vs Namava like/dislike counts) and cast semantics differ (Filimo movie cast is scraped from description text, series cast is a few featured actors). Those are meaningful data-quality caveats an agent should know before reading 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?

It is front-loaded with purpose, then usage chaining, then per-site caveats, with no filler or repeated phrasing. The per-site rating and cast clauses are dense but each carries information an agent cannot get from the schema or 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 single-ref read tool this is complete: annotations cover mutability and idempotency, the description enumerates the returned fields despite there being no output schema, and it explains how the ref relates to sibling tools. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 description already lists the accepted formats and examples ('filimo:0bd4p', 'namava:series:2377'). The description only reiterates that the value comes from a prior search hit, adding no format or constraint detail beyond the pattern in 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Get full details of one movie or series on Filimo or Namava') and enumerates the returned fields (synopsis, genres, year, rating, age rating, cast, director). It is unmistakably distinct from vod_episodes, vod_related and vod_person, which are named later as follow-ups.

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?

It states the prerequisite explicitly ('Use after vod_search, vod_browse or vod_new with the `ref` of a hit') and then routes onward ('For a series, follow with vod_episodes', 'vod_related gives similar titles and vod_person a cast member's filmography'). Both what selects this tool and what comes next are spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.

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