rottentomatoes_browse_tv

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

No annotations are provided. The description adds transparency about the data source (public browse pages) and authentication (credential-free), but does not disclose rate limits, response structure, or other behavioral traits. It sufficiently communicates that this is a read-only operation.

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 concise, with three sentences front-loading the purpose and following with technical details. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 browse tool with no required parameters, the description is fairly complete. It explains what it returns and supported options. Without an output schema, it could mention return format, but it remains 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces valid values for list and sort, but adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema. It does not introduce new constraints or formatting details.

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 returns normalized TV series rows from Rotten Tomatoes browse pages, using credential-free JSON-LD data. It specifies supported list and sort values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like rottentomatoes_browse_movies and rottentomatoes_series.

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?

The description lists supported values for list (tv_series_browse) and sort (popular, newest), giving clear context for usage. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the specificity of values implies appropriate use cases versus other TV-related tools.

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