familyguy.co.uk episode database

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It is clearly a read operation by phrasing ('Return what this site records') and it discloses the shape of the returned content (sourced profile, household, role, voice actors), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about not-found behavior, lookup exactness, 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?

One sentence, tightly front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the enumerated fields at the end are informative rather than 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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully enumerates the returned fields. For a simple single-parameter getter this is close to sufficient, though error/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is documented with an example ('Stewie Griffin'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no further constraint such as exact-match requirements or aliases.

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 (return) and resource (Family Guy character record) and enumerates what the record contains: sourced profile, household, role, voice actors. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the nearby get_person sibling, which is the main gap.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus get_person, get_episode, or the search tools, and no mention of what happens for a non-existent name. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.

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?

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' clearly signals a non-destructive read and scoping to one episode, which is useful, but it discloses nothing about failure modes (unknown code/title), what happens with ambiguous or partial input (e.g. season alone), or auth/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: the first front-loads what is returned, the second the accepted inputs. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information (scope + identifier forms) leads.

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, enumerating the returned fields is exactly the right compensation, and no annotations mean little extra disclosure is strictly required for a simple read tool. The only real gap is behavior for unmatched or ambiguous input.

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 already 75%, and the description adds meaningful semantics by showing the code format (S03E12) and indicating that season+episode or an exact title are valid alternative identification paths. It stops short of explaining how the four optional parameters interact or which combination takes precedence.

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 concrete verb ('Return') and resource ('everything this site records for one episode') and enumerates the payload (summary, air date, writers, directors, viewing figure, identifiers). It reads as a single-record lookup distinct from search_episodes or get_season, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 implied rather than stated: the description lists three accepted identifier forms (code, season+episode, exact title) but gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions that select this tool over search_episodes or which_episode, and no note about tie-breaking or no-match behavior.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns exactly one entry or the full list, and implies read-only access, but omits pagination/size behavior for the list-all case and says nothing about ordering or error handling for unknown terms.

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 short sentences, zero filler, and the core lookup behavior is front-loaded before the optional-mode caveat.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers what is returned (meaning plus page) and the parameter's dual behavior, which is sufficient to call the tool correctly. Minor gaps remain around list-all volume and unknown-term handling.

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% (baseline 3), and the description adds real value beyond the schema by explaining the optional-parameter behavior: omitting 'term' switches the tool from single lookup to listing all entries, which the schema alone does not convey.

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?

Names a specific verb (return/look up) and resource (a fact entry, i.e. a term's meaning in Family Guy) plus the return payload (meaning + page). It is clearly distinct from the character/episode/season resources named in siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

States the two operational modes: supply a term to look one up, omit it to list every entry. This tells the agent when to use each form, but gives no guidance on alternatives (e.g. when to use a search tool instead) and no prerequisites.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the shape of the result (roles plus episode counts), which implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about what happens for an unknown name, whether name matching is fuzzy, or any 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?

One sentence with zero preamble, front-loading the return content (roles and episode counts). Every clause earns its place and nothing is redundant.

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 must sketch the return value, and it does: roles held and credited episode counts. That is sufficient for a single-parameter lookup tool, though it omits how roles are grouped or ordered in the response.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is documented with an example in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching-rule detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it returns the credits recorded for one person, including roles held and episode counts. Combined with the title naming the person types (writer, director, voice actor), an agent can tell this apart from get_character or get_episode. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings.

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 implied by the phrasing 'the credits this site records for one person' — use it when you have a person name and want their credits. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., get_character for character-centric lookups), so the agent must infer routing between this and its siblings.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload, which is valuable given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an out-of-range season, whether results are cached, or the effect of includeEpisodes=false on the described output.

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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned fields in order. Nothing is redundant and nothing is padded.

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 and only a 2-parameter object, the description supplies the return shape an agent needs (episode count, air dates, episode list), which is the main contextual requirement. It leaves the includeEpisodes toggle and invalid-season handling unexplained, but overall it is adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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%: 'season' is described as 'Season number.' but includeEpisodes has no description at all. The description's mention of 'the episode list' hints at what includeEpisodes controls, yet it never connects the two or explains that setting it false suppresses that list, so it only partially compensates for the gap.

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 ('Return one season of Family Guy') and even enumerates the payload (episode count, start/end dates, episode list). The singular 'one season' implicitly separates it from get_episode and search_episodes, but no sibling is named explicitly, 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance. Usage is only implied: the 'one season' framing makes the lookup-vs-search boundary inferable, but an agent gets no statement like 'use search_episodes if you don't know the season number.'

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return fields (episode code, title, air date, writers, directors, page URL), but says nothing about pagination, the default limit of 10, the max of 50, or result ordering, which matter for a search tool.

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 waste: the search dimensions and return payload come first, the sibling routing last. 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 supplies the returned fields, and with no annotations it implies a safe read via 'Find'. It is adequate for a 4-param, all-optional search, though pagination and limit behavior remain unaddressed.

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 75%, and the description complements it by mapping each search mode (title words, season, year first aired) to the corresponding parameters, adding intent beyond raw types. The limit parameter and its default/max are left entirely to the schema, so it is not fully compensating.

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 (Find/Search) and resource (Family Guy episodes) plus the three supported search dimensions. It explicitly separates itself from get_episode, which retrieves a single episode in full, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool (get_episode) and the condition that selects it ('for one episode in full'), giving clear routing context. It does not spell out when-not to use search (e.g., ambiguous titles, no-match behavior), but the alternative is explicit.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the substantive traits: this is a read that returns counts plus a 'last refreshed' freshness signal. It stops short of stating read-only explicitly, permissions, or response format, but for a zero-parameter read tool the disclosure of returned content and staleness is meaningful.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the enumerable contents. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler.

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 and no annotations, so the description must define the return value, and it largely does by listing the metrics it reports. It could be fuller on the shape/units of the response, but for a simple stats endpoint this is close to sufficient.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline there are no parameter semantics to explain and the description is not expected to compensate. Nothing here misleads about inputs.

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 ('Return') and resource ('size and freshness of the database'), then enumerates the covered entities (episodes, seasons, characters, people). This clearly separates it as the aggregate/overview tool versus the per-entity siblings like get_episode and get_person, though it never names those siblings 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: an agent can infer this is the tool for a high-level overview rather than a specific lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to call it (e.g., 'use this first to gauge coverage') or any exclusion against the sibling get_* tools.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral fact — that matching happens against episode summaries, not titles — which shapes how the agent should phrase input. It says nothing about result ordering, ranking, or what the response contains, and the undocumented 'limit' hints at a paginated/capped result list that is never explained.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose before the query-format hint. Nothing wasted, though the content is thin rather than dense.

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 read-only lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to pass and what corpus is searched, which is the core need. It still leaves the result shape, the role of 'limit', and ranking behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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%: 'moment' is documented in the schema and further enriched by the description's examples (character, place, event), but 'limit' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds modest value over the schema text but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find which episode something happens in') and adds a scope differentiator: it searches written story summaries rather than titles. That contrast implicitly separates it from search_episodes, though no sibling is 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 implied by the instruction to pass 'a few words describing the moment, such as a character, a place or an event', which tells the agent how to phrase the query. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings like search_episodes or get_episode, and no exclusions.

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