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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context on top: fuzzy matching behavior, the hard-capped result set, the lack of pagination, and the exact data fields returned. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide and contradicts nothing.

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?

Three purposeful sentences: the first defines the operation and return value, the second covers matching and limits, and the third routes to the correct alternative. No filler, no repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only search tool, this description is fully self-sufficient. It tells the agent what the tool does, what data it returns, its fuzzy behavior, its pagination limitations, and how to choose a sibling tool. The presence of an output schema means return-value details don't need to be restated.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an extra layer of guidance beyond the schema by explaining that narrowing the query is required to reach results beyond the hard cap, which gives the agent a strategy for using the query parameter effectively.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search television shows by title', then enumerates exactly what each match returns. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tvmaze_lookup_show by explicitly stating it handles the reverse direction, making tool selection 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 usage context: it tells the agent this is the right tool for title-based fuzzy search and explicitly says to use tvmaze_lookup_show when starting from an IMDb or TheTVDB id. It also documents the practical constraint of the 10-result cap and the strategy of narrowing the title.

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