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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'No auth required' and the source/attribution note ('TVmaze.com (CC BY-SA)'), which are relevant for agents deciding whether to call this and how to attribute results.

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 with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purposeclarity, then gives the prerequisite (show_search), then notes auth and source. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero 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?

Given the low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, what data it returns, how to find the required ID, auth requirements, and data source. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 fully documents the id parameter with examples and exclusivity constraints (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the ID is a TVMaze-specific identifier and that show_search should be used to obtain it, reinforcing the schema's examples and helping the agent understand the ID's origin and selection process.

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 states a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('TV show by TVMaze ID'), and lists the specific data fields returned (genres, status, network, schedule, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly telling the agent to use show_search first to find the ID, making it clear this tool is for direct lookup by ID rather than search.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use show_search to find the TVMaze ID first, which is a clear usage prerequisite and points to the correct sibling tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use alternative siblings like tvmaze.shows.cast or tvmaze.shows.episodes, though the naming makes it somewhat obvious.

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