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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those hints by stating 'No auth required' and crediting the data source and license, which helps an agent judge accessibility and trust. No behavioral surprises or contradictions are present.

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 front-loaded: purpose, output contents, filtering behavior, specials handling, auth requirement, and source attribution each earn their place in roughly three sentences. There is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 tool has a detailed input schema, strong annotations, and an output schema, so the description only needs to convey selection context and access requirements. It does so fully by covering filtering, specials, auth, and licensing, leaving no significant gap an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id, season, and specials well. The description paraphrases the season filter and specials option but does not add meaning beyond the schema, matching the baseline expectation for fully covered parameters.

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 action and resource, 'Get the complete episode list for a TV show,' and enumerates the concrete contents (season/episode numbers, air dates, runtimes, ratings, summaries). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like tvmaze.shows.details, tvmaze.shows.search, and tvmaze.shows.cast.

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 gives clear context: use this when you need a complete episode list, optionally filtered by season or including specials. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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