list-tv-reviews

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

There are no annotations, and the description provides no behavioral details such as read-only nature, pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. It merely restates the function name.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It repeats the tool name without adding any extra information, making it tautological.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description should explain what reviews are listed, the expected input, and perhaps return format. It fails to do so, offering only a bare phrase that provides no practical guidance.

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 fully documents the single required 'id' parameter with an example, so the baseline for parameter semantics is 3. The tool description adds no information about how to use 'id' beyond the schema.

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 'list tv reviews' clearly states a verb ('list') and a resource ('tv reviews'), and the word 'tv' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-movie-reviews and list-book-reviews. However, it's minimal and doesn't add any scope or context beyond the tool name.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-movie-reviews or get-tv-detail. The description doesn't mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions.

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