get_movie_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states this is a read operation ('Get') and lists return fields (budget, revenue, etc.), which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format specifics, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and parameter, the second lists return details. It's front-loaded with essential info and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing return fields. However, for a tool with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, it lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration context. It's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness for a read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'movie_id' documented as 'TMDB movie ID'. The description adds that it's for 'a specific movie using its TMDB ID', reinforcing the schema but not providing additional semantics like format examples or validation rules. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific movie', specifying it uses a TMDB ID. It distinguishes from siblings like search_movies (which searches) or get_movie_credits (which focuses on credits), but doesn't explicitly contrast them. The purpose is specific and actionable, though sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies usage when you have a specific TMDB movie ID and need comprehensive details, suggesting an alternative to search_movies if you don't have an ID. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like get_movie_credits for cast info or discover_movies for browsing. Guidelines are present but not fully articulated.

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