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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context the annotations don't: the schedule is metadata only, with no video archive or broadcast rights, preventing a wrong expectation of streamable content.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but 'We collect and organize the available schedules' is filler and 'Check available dates' is an unexplained fragment that weakens clarity rather than earning its place.

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?

It is a read-only tool with all three parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, and the description covers what it returns conceptually plus a useful caveat about broadcast rights. It does not describe the return shape or how paging via `antes` behaves, leaving moderate gaps for an agent calling it blind.

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 each parameter is documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description names 'channel' and 'date' but adds no syntax or format detail, and 'Check available dates' does not clearly explain the optional `antes` paging parameter, so it stays at baseline 3.

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 first sentence gives a clear verb+resource: retrieve the stored TV guide for one channel on one day. However, it does not distinguish itself from several close siblings (get_channel_guide, get_programacao, list_programacao, get_api_x402_programacao_by_slug_by_dia), and 'We collect and organize the available schedules' adds noise rather than scope.

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?

'Read the channel and date you need instead of building an EPG collection process' implies usage and warns against self-collecting, but no alternative sibling is named and 'Check available dates' is cryptic about whether another tool or this one's behavior is meant. When-to-use versus the guide siblings is left to inference.

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