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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by detailing the two planning strategies, acceptance of parameters, and output structure (ordered timeline + alternatives dropped + totals). No contradictions; the behavioral context is enhanced.

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: the first states purpose and strategies, the second lists inputs and output. Every word is essential, front-loaded, and free of redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 presumed present, the description mentions key outputs. It covers the core functionality, but lacks details on acceptable mood values and channel preference format. Overall complete enough given the annotations, but minor gaps remain.

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 only 14%, with only 'start' having a description. The tool description mentions 'mood' and 'channel preferences' but does not elaborate on valid values or behavior. It provides a general sense but insufficiently compensates for the low schema coverage.

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 that the tool builds a coherent TV watching plan for an evening, specifying two strategies (one long program or 2-3 segments with gaps) and listing accepted inputs. This specific verb+resource detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_recommend_today or tv_now_on_tv.

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 planning an evening with constraints, but does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferable versus siblings like tv_recommend_by_mood.

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