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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup via 'look up' and discloses a 'Cost = 5 tokens' behavioral trait. However, it does not mention potential error cases (e.g., invalid slug), authentication requirements, or rate limits, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a concise list of return data and a cost note. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or fluff. It is highly efficient for agent consumption.

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?

The description is complete for a simple lookup tool: it states the input (slug), the output fields, and the cost. An output schema exists, so return values are already documented. It could be enriched by mentioning that search can be used to find slugs, but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The input schema already provides a description for tv_show_slug with an example (breaking-bad). The tool description repeats the slug example but does not add additional meaning, such as how to obtain a slug (e.g., via search) or any format constraints beyond what the schema states. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 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 'Look up a TV series on Rotten Tomatoes by slug' with a concrete example, clearly identifying the operation and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like movie_details and tv_show_cast_and_crew by focusing on overall TV details. The verb 'look up' and resource naming are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use: whenever a user needs comprehensive TV series details (years, ratings, genres, scores, etc.) from Rotten Tomatoes. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using rotten-tomatoes.tv_show_cast_and_crew for full cast information, but the scope is well understood from the listed return fields.

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