get_recommendations_by_criteria

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, what the return format looks like, or any side effects, rate limits, or error behavior. The description is minimal and leaves much to the agent's interpretation.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no unnecessary words or redundancy. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without fluff.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description should ideally indicate the return type (e.g., a list of recommendations) but does not. It also does not mention the default behavior of contentType (even though the schema notes the default is 'both'), leaving some context 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?

The schema provides full descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description restates three of the four parameters but adds no new semantic detail beyond what the schema already offers, and it ignores contentType entirely.

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 description clearly identifies the action (Get) and resource (OTT recommendations) and specifies the three main filters (platform, genre, minRating). However, it omits the optional contentType filter, which is present in the schema, slightly reducing completeness.

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?

The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the similar sibling tools like get_recommendations_by_platform_and_rating or get_recommendations_by_genre_and_rating. No conditions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the filter combination.

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