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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details such as case/diacritic-insensitive matching, coverage of all channels, and accepted time formats (e.g., 'now, tonight, tomorrow, YYYY-MM-DD, ISO range'). No contradiction.

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 concise: two sentences plus a list of time references. Every part adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool's complexity (6 parameters, many siblings), the description covers purpose, examples, time references, and channel coverage. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Reasonably complete, but could include an example of combining filters.

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 67% (4 out of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description reiterates the parameters but does not add significant new meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it explains time references in more detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states it searches programs across all 254 Romanian TV channels by free-text title, channel, category, and time window. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tv_now_on_tv or tv_recommend_by_mood, which are more specific.

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 provides example queries and lists accepted time references, giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or directly compare to sibling tools.

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