tv_maze_1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior, but it only states a generic return of data. No mention of side effects, safety constraints, rate limits, or what the response looks like. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 description is a single sentence, which is brief, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It does not earn its place as it adds no substantive information beyond the tool name.

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?

Given the simple schema (no params, no output schema), the description still fails to explain what data is returned, in what format, or any behavioral details. It is completely inadequate for an agent to know what to expect from this tool, especially with a sibling 'tv_maze' that likely has richer documentation.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema fully documents the absence of inputs. Per the guideline, 0 params receives a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 'Returns tv maze data' is essentially a restatement of the tool name (tv_maze_1) with a generic verb. It identifies the resource but lacks specifics about what kind of TV Maze data (shows, episodes, people, etc.), making it vague and indistinguishable from the sibling tool 'tv_maze'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description provides no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without any decision support.

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