get_recommendations_by_platform_and_rating

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-like action ('get') but does not describe output format, pagination, potential rate limits, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as the agent cannot infer behavior beyond the basic retrieval action.

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, efficient sentence that captures the core purpose without waste. It is appropriately concise for a simple filtering tool, though it lacks any structural elements like sections or examples. It does not under-specify the primary action.

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?

The tool has three parameters, including an optional contentType that is not mentioned in the description. There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value, default behavior for contentType, or how the results are ordered. For an agent to call this correctly, it needs to know the optional parameter's semantics and what to expect in response. The description is incomplete in these respects.

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 input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all three parameters including enums for platform and contentType, and a range for minRating. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. It does not clarify defaults or interactions between parameters.

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 states the tool retrieves OTT recommendations filtered by platform and IMDB rating, with a specific verb and resource. It is unambiguous about its core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_recommendations_by_genre_and_rating or get_recommendations_by_criteria, which also offer filter-based recommendations.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage via the filter combination, but it does not mention when to prefer it over get_recommendations_by_genre_and_rating or get_all_content_on_platform. There are no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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