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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: no auth required, support for broadcast vs streaming channels, what the response includes, and the data source/license. This is meaningful added context without contradicting the 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 compact and well-ordered: purpose, output contents, mode toggle, parameter formats, defaults, auth, and source. Every sentence earns its place, and key scoping 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?

With only 3 parameters, no required fields, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description covers everything an agent needs: input formats, defaults, response contents, streaming mode, auth, and licensing. Nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline applies. The description echoes the schema's country/date/streaming semantics rather than revealing new parameter meaning, though the explicit 'No auth required' and source note add minor operational context.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: retrieving the TV broadcast schedule for a country and date. It clearly distinguishes itself from per-show TVmaze tools by emphasizing 'all episodes airing that day' across channels, and the streaming/broadcast distinction adds further precision.

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 clearly conveys when to use it: for a country/date broadcast or streaming schedule, with defaults and the streaming toggle explained. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a full when-not-to-use guide.

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