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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The only behavioral claim in the description is the default scope, which merely restates the schema default of 'main'. No permissions, snapshot/freshness behavior, or limits are added beyond structured data.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The final sentence partially repeats the schema's scope default, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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, rich annotations, and fully documented parameters, the description covers enough for correct invocation. It could note that results are a point-in-time snapshot, which would matter given the sibling tv_check_freshness, but nothing essential is missing.

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 enum and default values and a rich scope description, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of scope='all' duplicates what the schema already documents and adds no new syntax or meaning.

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 and resource ('Returns the programs currently broadcasting on Romanian TV channels') with a clear present-moment scope that separates it in spirit from tv_tonight_card and tv_get_prime_time. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use this for "What is on TV now?" type questions'), which is clear usage context. It offers no when-not guidance and never points to alternatives such as tv_search_program or tv_tonight_card, so it stops short of the top band.

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