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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by specifying the data source (Romanian channels) and scope behavior (default 14 channels vs all 254). No contradictions; description aligns with 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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core function, the second provides usage guidance and scope variants. Information is front-loaded and easily parsed.

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?

Despite 4 parameters and no output schema details needed (as output schema exists), the description covers the essential context: purpose, geographic scope, filtering options, and default behavior. All parameters are explained through schema and description combination.

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 significant detail beyond the schema: it explains the scope enum values with examples (main = 14 channels like PRO TV, Antena 1, etc.; all = 254 channels), and clarifies the category filter as 'Romanian channel categories'. This enriches the agent's understanding.

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 title 'What is on TV right now' and description 'Returns the programs currently broadcasting on Romanian TV channels' clearly define the tool's purpose. It specifies the verb 'Returns', the resource 'programs currently broadcasting', and the scope 'Romanian TV channels', distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'tv_get_prime_time' or '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?

Description explicitly states 'Use this for "What is on TV now?" type questions', providing clear use context. It also explains default scope and the option to pass scope='all' for full list. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare with alternative tools like 'tv_search_program', but the specificity is sufficient for an AI agent.

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