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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: it explains the combination logic (channel category, mood-fit, time proximity, streaming cross-reference) and mentions that output includes mood_parts breakdown and freshness. There is no contradiction 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?

The description is two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential details about the algorithm and output. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 that an output schema exists (mentioned but not shown) and annotations cover safety, the description covers the key aspects: mood parameter, combination factors, output structure. It could mention the Romanian context more explicitly, but it already does. It is mostly complete for the task.

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 43% (only 3 of 7 params have descriptions: mood, prefer, timeframe). The description adds meaningful information for mood (lists aliases) and timeframe (explains format), but does not add semantics for limit, dislike_genres, dislike_keywords, include_streaming_xref. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate 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 it returns top-N Romanian TV programs ranked for a given mood, listing exact mood values and explaining the combining factors (channel category, mood-fit, time proximity, streaming cross-reference). This 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 tells when to use (when a mood is specified) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention specific alternatives. However, the sibling list and the phrase 'Returns top-N Romanian TV programs ranked for a given mood' make the usage context clear.

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