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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds only that it returns the last guide plus history, but says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens at the edge of the history window, which matters given the 'antes' paging parameter.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded and free of waste. It is brief to the point of underspecification, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure problem.

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 guide-retrieval tool with no output schema, the description omits the return structure, ordering, and how the 'history' window relates to the paging parameter, and it does not differentiate from three similarly named siblings. This leaves meaningful gaps for correct invocation.

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%, with both slug and antes fully documented in the schema, including the reference to guia.proximo. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific resource (TV guide / programacao) for a channel with history scope, but the phrasing is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish it from siblings get_channel_guide, get_programacao_dia, and list_programacao. An agent cannot tell from the text alone which of these to pick.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as get_programacao_dia or list_programacao, despite three closely named siblings that overlap in function. The reader must infer from the name and the 'history' phrasing.

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