fanaticslive_shop_shows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavioral traits: the data is public and credential-free, sourced from Fanatics Live's own GraphQL API, and the replay status semantics are called out. It stops short of describing pagination/response behavior, but the schema's after/next_cursor documentation partially covers that.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the sibling distinction, then behavioral notes. The first two sentences are slightly redundant (both describe the live/replay list), but the content is otherwise compact and every remaining sentence 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essentials: what it returns (a shop's own show list), how it differs from browse, status semantics, and data source. The missing return-format detail is partially mitigated by the schema's after/next_cursor pagination reference.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters well; baseline 3 applies. The description adds marginal value with the status=replay credential nuance, but doesn't add syntax or format details beyond what the schema 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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a Fanatics Live shop's own live/replay show list), and explicitly distinguishes itself from /fanaticslive/browse, which lists shows across all shops filtered by league. An agent can tell this apart from its closest sibling 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 (fanaticslive/browse) and the exact condition that selects between them: per-shop shows here vs cross-shop league-filtered shows there. Also adds a practical selection rule that status=replay is the only credential-free way to observe a COMPLETE-status show.

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