Browse rankings

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: score scales (100 for critics, 10 for users), approximate paging with possible duplicate entries across pages, and the all-time ranking bias toward older titles. These are non-obvious traps the agent must account for.

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?

Seven sentences are tightly structured: purpose and intended use first, then filtering, then result interpretation, then paging caveats. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant phrasing.

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 tool's moderate complexity, read-only annotations, and existing output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, how to filter, how to interpret scores, and how to handle paging edge cases. No crucial information 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%, but the description enriches the parameter meanings: it explains what each sort option yields, instructs genre to be a single name like Horror, and warns that offset paging is approximate so deduplication by slug is needed. This is more than the schema descriptions provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List films, shows or games by score, by release date or by current popularity.' It clearly distinguishes this browsing tool from siblings by stating it is for when there is no specific title to look up, unlike search_titles or get_title.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when there is no specific title to look up' and lists example intents (best rated, newest, what people are looking at now). It does not directly name sibling tools as alternatives, but the exclusion is clear enough given the visible sibling list.

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