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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the guide=1 availability constraint, a two-day data freshness bound, and the instruction to check the response date because the channel record carries a summary in `guide_now`.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then availability and freshness caveats. Slightly dense with backtick field names, but every sentence carries operational information; only the '(recorded by us)' aside is marginal.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry return-value meaning, and it does sketch the payload (now/next/list) plus the guide_now summary location. It stops short of describing the actual response structure or what happens for a channel without a guide, which is the remaining gap.

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% for the single `id` parameter, including a format example (`GloboNews.br`), so the schema does the work. The description adds no new meaning about the id beyond naming related fields (`guide`, `guide_now`) that are not 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns today's TV guide for a channel, with the payload enumerated as 'now, next and the list'. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like get_programacao, get_programacao_dia, or list_programacao, so the agent must infer which schedule endpoint applies.

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?

It gives a real precondition ('available for the channels with a guide (`guide=1`)') and a validity window ('valid for up to two days'), which tells the agent when the call is meaningful. But it names no alternative for channels lacking a guide and does not contrast with the other programacao tools, leaving routing implied.

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