pws_get_show

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safe nature is covered. The description adds value by specifying what data is returned (card, participants, results, ratings, location, runtime), which is not available from the schema or annotations. It does not discuss edge cases, but for a read-only getter this is adequate.

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 efficient sentence, front-loaded with the core action 'Get any show' and followed by a concise list of returned data. Every word contributes meaning with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With a simple one-parameter schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the main purpose and enumerates the key return fields. There is no output schema, but the list of returned content helps fill the gap. It does not address pagination or error behavior, but for a get-by-ID tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 description has 0% schema description coverage and does not explicitly mention the showId parameter. It says 'any show' which implies an identifier but does not clarify the parameter's role or constraints. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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 fetches a specific show, enumerating the comprehensive data returned (complete card, participants, results, ratings, location, runtime). This distinct verb+resource pairing differentiates it from sibling tools like pws_get_upcoming_shows or pws_get_state.

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 use case is implied by the name and description: retrieve a particular show by its ID. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusion like 'for lists use pws_get_upcoming_shows'. The description does not mention or contrast siblings.

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