tmdb_trending_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It states the return type as a 'Formatted string', which is useful, but it omits any details about authentication, rate limits, or error handling. Since this is a read-only trending operation, the lack of mutation warnings is acceptable, but the description is not rich in behavioral context.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, an Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the parameters and return type. However, it lacks any reference to context like pagination or response formatting, but since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain those details.

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 no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. It specifies the allowed values for time_window ('day' or 'week') and the default for language ('en-US'). This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'trending movies, TV shows, and people from TMDB'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tmdb_search_movies or tmdb_multi_search, which focus on searching rather than trending content.

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 provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools for search and reviews are obvious alternatives, but no explicit exclusions or comparison are mentioned. The 'Args' section only explains parameters, not usage context.

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