rottentomatoes_browse_tv

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 mentions using a 'public browse JSON route' (implying no auth) and pagination via opaque cursor, but it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as return format (always normalized rows), potential rate limits, or error conditions. It gives some context beyond the schema but not comprehensive.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: defining the tool's function, pointing to the filter endpoint for valid values, and explaining pagination. It is compact, no filler, and front-loads the main purpose. Highly efficient.

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 browse tool with many optional parameters, the description explains how to discover valid filter values and handle pagination, which is critical for correct usage. It does not describe the return structure (e.g., fields in each row), but since it returns normalized rows and there is no output schema, an agent might need to infer field names. However, the essential operational context is provided, and the complexity is moderate given the number of parameters but all optional and self-describing.

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% - all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description adds the meaning of 'after' as an opaque next-page cursor and mentions that sort/genres/etc. values come from the filters endpoint, which clarifies that these are not arbitrary but must come from that endpoint. This adds context beyond the schema's simple descriptions, but does not explain every parameter's format in detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already covers most semantics, with the description adding a small but useful clarification about filter sourcing.

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 the tool returns Rotten Tomatoes TV discovery rows from a specific public browse JSON route. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rottentomatoes_browse_movies by focusing on TV series (list value tv_series_browse).

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?

It advises using `/rottentomatoes/browse/filters?list=tv_series_browse` to discover current filters, which helps the agent obtain valid enum values for sort, genres, etc. It also explains pagination using the 'after' cursor, but does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus siblings like browsing movies or other Rotten Tomatoes endpoints, though the TV-specific focus implies that. Lacks explicit exclusion criteria but provides clear context.

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