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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. Description adds critical context: detection is keyword-based from EPG text with quoted evidence, honest about limitations ('no structured event metadata'). This goes 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?

Three sentences covering purpose, method, and usage hint. No redundant words. Front-loaded with what matters most. Each sentence 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?

Given output schema exists, description does not need to detail return format. It fully covers purpose, detection method, parameter guidance, and usage context. Sibling list is diverse, but this tool's role is unequivocally clear.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the 'min_tier' parameter semantics (1=major, 2=notable) and the context for 'date' (Europe/Bucharest). This enhances understanding 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?

The description clearly states it returns important Romanian TV broadcasts (major sports events like World Cup, Euro, Champions League). It uses specific verbs ('Detected', 'Use') and resource ('EPG text'), effectively distinguishing it from siblings like 'tv_recommend_today'.

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 says 'Use this FIRST for questions like "what's important to watch today?"', providing clear use context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or references to alternative tools, so a slight deduction.

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