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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and non-openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond search semantics: no ordering of results, no mention of how matches are ranked, and no note that all filters are optional with defaults.

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 tightly written sentences that front-load the core capability followed by example queries and the accepted time formats. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the query surface well. It could note that all six parameters are optional with defaults, but is otherwise complete for a search tool.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description's time-reference list largely duplicates the timeframe schema description. The undocumented parameters (limit, exclude_news) receive no explanation in either place, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 (Search) and resource (programs across all Romanian TV channels in the guide) and enumerates the matchable dimensions: free-text title, channel, category, and time window. The scope 'across all channels' implicitly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like tv_now_on_tv or tv_get_prime_time.

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?

Provides concrete usage examples ('documentaries on Discovery tomorrow', 'football on Saturday', 'what is on Antena 1 right now') that make the intended use case clear. It does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use it versus siblings like tv_now_on_tv, so it falls short of a 5.

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