List TMDB TV Watch Providers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists names and IDs, which is clear for a simple read-only listing, but it omits details about how parameters affect results or any authentication/rate-limit considerations. The purpose is conveyed but not enriched beyond the basic 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, resource, and purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for a straightforward listing tool.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned (names and IDs) and the general context. The main gap is the lack of parameter usage details, but the schema patterns provide some constraints. Overall, it is mostly complete given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for its two parameters, and the tool description does not explain how 'region' or 'language' are used. Only the word 'regional' hints at region filtering, but language is entirely unaddressed. This falls short of compensating for the low schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Lists' and names the resource ('regional TV streaming-provider names and IDs') plus the intended purpose ('for discovery filters'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tmdb_list_watch_providers by explicitly including 'TV'.

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 phrase 'for discovery filters' gives a use context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or name any exclusions. The distinction from the sibling 'tmdb_list_watch_providers' is implied rather than stated.

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