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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scoping (Romania-only region, live catalog coverage, 48h default window) but doesn't cover response shape, partial-miss behavior when a title isn't found, or latency across four upstream catalogs. Note openWorldHint=false is somewhat at odds with querying external streaming catalogs, though the description doesn't directly contradict 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?

Two sentences, zero waste: the first sentence front-loads what is searched and where, the second converts that into representative user queries. Nothing is redundant with the title beyond the necessary scope detail.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and the read-only annotations carry the safety burden, so the remaining description covers sources, region, and window well. A brief note on behavior when a title is absent from one or both sources would close the last gap.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented with defaults and bounds in the schema itself. The description restates the default 48-hour window without adding format or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('looks up') and resource (a title) and enumerates the two data sources: upcoming Romanian TV airings within a bounded window plus the Romanian streaming catalog for four named platforms. That is far more specific than a bare name restatement, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with a close sibling like tv_search_program.

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 two quoted example queries ('is Avatar on Netflix?', 'when does Game of Thrones air next?') give an agent a concrete use-case profile that maps directly to the two lookup modes. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for cases like searching by channel or time slot, which siblings such as tv_search_program cover.

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