metacritic_tv

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool is credential-free and returns normalized data, but does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid slugs.

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 two sentences with clear structure: action first, then returned data and credential info. No redundant words, front-loaded.

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 lookup with one parameter, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, return data, and authentication. However, it could specify the format of the slug and error handling to be fully adequate.

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 single parameter 'slug' has a schema description that is identical to the tool description's mention. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, earning a baseline score.

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 clearly states it gets a Metacritic TV show and lists the returned data fields. It is specific enough to distinguish from movies and games, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools for TV show reviews (metacritic_tv_critic_reviews, metacritic_tv_user_reviews).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like metacritic_browse or the review-specific siblings. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or use cases.

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