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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no rate limits, error behavior, or slug-resolution caveats), and its field list largely restates what the output schema already provides.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the key action and identifier first, followed by the payload fields. The enumerated field list is long but each item earns its place as a scope statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still scopes them. For a single-parameter detail lookup with annotations covering safety, nothing essential is missing; only sibling routing is unaddressed.

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% and the single slug parameter is documented with concrete examples in the schema. The description only echoes 'by slug' and adds no format, casing, or discovery guidance beyond what the schema already says.

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?

States a specific verb (Returns) and resource (Metacritic TV show details) plus the lookup key (by slug). The TV resource naturally separates it from metacritic_movie and metacritic_game siblings, though it does not explicitly name them.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch a TV show's detail record when you have its slug. There is no statement of when to prefer this over metacritic_tv_critic_reviews, metacritic_tv_user_reviews, or metacritic_browse, and no prerequisites named.

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