BingeTube

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add value by naming the returned fields (about, episode count, links to watch), but says nothing about lookup failure, title-ambiguity resolution, or rate limits.

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?

Two tight sentences, return contents front-loaded followed by the calling instruction. Zero padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully previews the payload (synopsis, episode count, watch links), which is what an agent needs to decide to call it. The only real gap is unspecified behavior for an unmatched or ambiguous title.

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 parameter already says 'Show id or title', which the description repeats almost verbatim. It adds no disambiguation rule for what happens when an id and a title collide or when a title matches multiple shows, so 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 verb-and-resource pair (fetch details of one show) and enumerates what comes back: synopsis, episode count, watch links. That scope signals a single-record lookup versus the list-style siblings (search_shows, top_shows, recommend_shows), though none are named explicitly.

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 only implied — you call it when you already have an identifier for a specific show. There is no statement of when to prefer search_shows or recommend_shows instead, and no mention of what happens if the show isn't found.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results come back as shows with links to watch on BingeTube, which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about result count defaults, ranking basis, or behavior when no match is found.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads the action and the audience intent, the second covers the return value. The examples earn their space by showing the expected input register.

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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, input style and output shape adequately. Remaining gaps (default limit, ranking logic, empty-result behavior) are minor but real given the absence of an output schema.

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 67% and the description meaningfully clarifies the key required parameter 'likes' as free-form natural language ('in their words'), supported by worked examples. The genre enum is self-documenting in the schema, but 'limit' is never mentioned in the description despite lacking a schema description.

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 (recommend) and resource (short drama series on BingeTube) and grounds it with concrete example inputs like 'revenge after divorce' and 'something like ReelShort'. This is clearly distinguishable from the retrieval siblings get_show/search_shows/top_shows, which find or list rather than suggest.

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 phrase 'for a mood, trope or story the person likes' gives a clear triggering context, and the examples reinforce the kind of fuzzy, natural-language request this tool is built for. It does not explicitly say when to prefer search_shows or top_shows instead, so the alternative routing is left implicit.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds that the target is a niche external streaming catalog (binge.tube). It says nothing operational — no cap of 20 results, no ranking behavior, no empty-result behavior — so it adds only modest context beyond the structured fields.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, and the identification of the site and content type is front-loaded before the usage condition. Every clause earns 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?

For a simple two-parameter search with rich annotations, the description covers what is being searched and when to call it. It leaves the result shape and the limit/pagination behavior unexplained, which matters slightly more because there is no output schema.

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 only 50%: `query` is documented in the schema, while `limit` has no description anywhere. The description does sharpen `query` semantics by clarifying matches are on title or words in the story (plot keywords, not just titles), but it never addresses the undocumented limit parameter or its maximum of 20.

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 (search) and resource (BingeTube shows) and adds domain context — short vertical drama series with 1–2 minute episodes — that tells the agent exactly what corpus is being queried. It does not name a sibling, so the boundary with get_show (fetch one known show) or top_shows is left implicit.

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?

"Use it when someone asks for a specific short drama, or where to watch one" gives a clear triggering condition. No when-not guidance or named alternatives (e.g., "use get_show once you have an ID"), which keeps it below a 5.

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

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value by disclosing the ranking metric (watch-through depth) and the 30-day lookback window. It omits the default result count and whether ordering is descending by that metric, which would complete the picture.

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 front-loaded sentence that defines the resource, the ranking metric, the time window, and the optional filter with no filler. Every clause earns 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?

With no output schema, the description should hint at what comes back; it conveys the ordering principle but not the shape of the results (fields per show, default page size). For a simple zero-required-param list tool this is adequate but leaves gaps an agent would notice on first call.

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 50%: genre is fully documented in the schema with its enum, and the description's 'optionally for one genre' merely repeats it. The limit parameter has no description anywhere, and the description does not mention the 1-10 cap or a default, leaving half the parameter surface unexplained.

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 names the resource (short dramas) and the exact ranking criterion: ranked by how far viewers watch, over a 30-day window. That is far more specific than a title restatement. It does not explicitly contrast itself with recommend_shows or search_shows, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the browse/discover entry point versus get_show (single item) and search_shows (query-driven), but the description never states when to pick this over recommend_shows. It does clarify the optional genre scoping, which is the only explicit guidance.

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