The Daily Smark

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) already declare safety and idempotency. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns full detail including venue and card preview. 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?

Two clear, front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 get tool with one parameter, strong annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and source of the id. It does not describe return format, but that is acceptable given the simplicity.

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% and the parameter description in the schema explains the unique id. The tool description does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gets full detail for one event by unique id, specifying it includes venue and card preview. It distinguishes from siblings (get_tv_schedule, list_live_events) that return lists, by indicating it retrieves details for a single known entity.

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 explicitly advises obtaining the id from get_tv_schedule or list_live_events first, providing clear context. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the prerequisite is well-stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description confirms it's a read operation but adds no new behavioral traits beyond 'get the schedule'.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence defines purpose, second gives usage context. Well front-loaded.

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?

Adequate for a read-only scheduled tool with optional parameters. No output schema, but the description is clear enough given the annotations and parameter richness.

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 provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, and the tool description does not add further meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3.

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?

Clearly states the tool retrieves the pro-wrestling TV schedule, specifying shows, days, and channels. Distinguishes itself from siblings like get_event.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent to use it for answering 'what is on tonight/this week', but does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that events are 'live' and shown 'with their venues,' which is minor context. No contradiction with annotations, but also no substantial behavioral disclosure beyond what the annotations and schema already imply.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief usage tip. It is appropriately terse for a simple listing tool, with no unnecessary 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 read-only list operation with a fully described schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists (upcoming events), the scope (live pro-wrestling, house shows/PPVs), and venue inclusion. However, the misleading lat/lon reference and lack of mention of default behavior (e.g., sorting, pagination) leave some gaps, though annotations and schema fill in most needs.

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 tool description itself does not elaborate on any actual parameters; instead, it references non-existent latitude and longitude filters, which actively misleads. Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so a baseline of 3 is warranted, but the presence of incorrect parameter guidance reduces the value of the description's contribution.

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 'List upcoming live pro-wrestling events (house shows and pay-per-views) with their venues,' using a specific verb and resource that clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_event' (singular) and 'get_tv_schedule' by focusing on listing live events.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('is anything coming to my area') and how to filter, but it instructs passing 'latitude and longitude' parameters that do not exist in the input schema. This critical error makes the guidance misleading and could cause an agent to attempt invalid calls, undermining the usefulness of the usage instructions.

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

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

Adds context beyond annotations: returns markdown links (not full text), covers last 30 days, ordering by featured then newest. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint.

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?

Concise, well-structured, front-loaded with main purpose. Every sentence adds value without waste.

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?

Fully describes return format, time range, ordering, and filtering options. No output schema exists, but description compensates adequately.

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 adds value by clarifying when to use showSpoilers (only on explicit request). This extra guidance improves parameter semantics above the baseline of 3.

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 lists recent pro-wrestling news headlines from The Daily Smark, with clear output details (markdown links, no full text). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_event or list_videos.

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 guidance on keeping links in answers and on using the showSpoilers parameter only when explicitly requested. Does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the purpose is unique enough to avoid confusion.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent. Description adds that the tool returns markdown links and instructs to keep them, providing useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and gives a usage instruction.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', so the description adds no new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents the parameter.

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?

Clearly states it lists recent pro-wrestling podcast episodes from The Daily Smark and returns markdown links. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_news and list_videos by specifying the content type and source.

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?

Explicitly describes when to use it (to get recent podcast episodes) and instructs to keep links in the answer. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear and siblings provide implicit alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds useful behavioral context: returns markdown links and instructs to keep them in answers. No contradictions. Could be richer on pagination details but sufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded purpose, zero waste. Every word earns its place.

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?

With 0 required parameters, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers domain, sorting, and output usage. Missing explicit pagination behavior but page parameter is standard.

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% so parameters are well-documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., default sorting is implicit not tied to a parameter). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states it lists 'pro-wrestling videos collected by The Daily Smark' and mentions sorting order and return format. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which cover events, schedules, news, and podcasts.

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 for fetching video lists but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, though sibling names offer differentiation by content type.

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