Read an entry

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

Adds valuable behavioral details beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations: sections gate each other, critic and audience scores use different scales (never compare), where_to_watch has an extra cost and only applies to films/shows, and long descriptions paginate with offset/next_offset. No contradictions.

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 compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently explains sections, behavior, and pagination without wasted words.

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 complexity (multiple optional sections, pagination, cost implications), the description covers all essential behaviors and gives clear guidance. The output schema exists, so return values are documented separately, making this description fully adequate.

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?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds rich meaning to the sections parameter (defaults, gating, costs), to offset (pagination with truncated/next_offset), and to the semantics of scores (separate scales). This goes far beyond the schema descriptions.

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?

States unambiguously that it reads a single Metacritic entry by slug and kind, with identifiers coming from search_titles. This differentiates it from siblings that search or browse.

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?

Provides clear context: identifiers come from search_titles, sections are opt-in with a default set, and pagination is explained for long descriptions. Does not explicitly name alternatives like get_reviews, but the usage context is strong.

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