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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'grabada por nós' (recorded by us), which hints at a data source but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or any side effects. The lack of such disclosure is a notable gap.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and output. It is front-loaded with the key information and contains no filler. While very efficient, it could arguably include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It specifies the content of the response (now, next, list), which gives some context. However, it lacks details about the response format, any pagination, or potential edge cases, and without annotations it does not cover operational aspects. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema fully describes the single parameter 'id' as 'ID do canal no iptv-org.' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description need not add parameter details. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 that the tool provides today's channel programming ('Programação de hoje do canal') with specific components: now, next, and the list. This clearly identifies the resource and the type of data returned, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like get_channel (likely channel details) and list_* tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with any specific sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions for selection, exclusions, or related tools. An agent would have to infer usage from the name and context alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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