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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: uses a deterministic scorer that rewards films/documentaries/generalist channels, penalises news, and boosts upcoming programs. 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: first explains what it does and how, second provides example queries. No filler, front-loaded, every 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?

With 4 parameters, schema coverage at 75%, and an output schema present, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior (scoring logic) and usage context. It might be slightly improved by mentioning timezone or locale, but overall it is sufficient.

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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions 'up to N' which maps to limit. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers most parameter semantics.

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 verb ('Returns'), resource ('program recommendations'), and scope ('for a given timeframe', 'up to N ranked'). It also provides specific query examples, making it easy for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and distinguish it from siblings like tv_recommend_by_mood.

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 gives explicit usage examples ('recommend me something for tonight', 'ce e bun la TV diseară') that define when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives, which would strengthen guidance.

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