tv_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it discloses that the tool does not play content and returns available services plus deep links. This gives the agent a clear side-effect profile and expected output. It does not cover edge cases like no results, but that is not critical for a search tool.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core behavior and limitation are front-loaded, and the special-case music hint is efficiently appended.

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 two-parameter search tool with a rich schema, the description covers the essential points: no playback side effect, what is returned, and the special music variant. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation.

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 adds value by clarifying that type 'music' is for Spotify track search, which goes beyond the bare enum. It also frames 'title' as the content to search for.

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 states a specific action ('Search for content'), a clear resource ('streaming services'), and an explicit scope boundary ('without playing'). This cleanly differentiates it from the sibling tv_play tool.

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 'without playing' tells the agent this is for discovery rather than playback, implicitly distinguishing it from tv_play. It also gives a concrete usage hint for the 'music' type. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is clear enough.

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