get_media_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently explains what the tool returns, including numeric status codes and fields like has_request and seasons_count, implying a read-only operation. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but the language ('check', 'returns') strongly implies it.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, followed by usage, then a bulleted return section. It is somewhat longer than necessary, but each part adds value, especially given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameters, and return structure. It is missing details about error cases or behavior for invalid inputs, but given the existence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining tmdb_id as 'TMDB ID of the movie or TV show (from search results)' and media_type as '"movie" or "tv"'. This adds meaningful context beyond the raw schema, including the valid values and source.

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's function: 'Check the availability status of a movie or TV show.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and resource ('availability status') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_media and request_media by focusing on status retrieval.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use search_media first to find the TMDB ID, then check its detailed status.' This establishes a clear workflow and contextualizes when to use the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, but the prerequisite guidance is sufficient.

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