tvh_search_epg

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavioral detail: timestamps are Unix seconds, fulltext controls whether descriptions are included, and filters are EPG-specific grid filters with time bounds. Pagination/limit behavior is not disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and packed with actionable detail; nothing is filler. The grid-filter clause is slightly jargon-heavy and reads as an aside rather than structured guidance, which keeps it just short of ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the eventId handoff covers the main integration need. But for a tool with 6 parameters at 0% schema coverage, leaving limit and channel_uuid entirely undocumented and the filters object shape unexplained is a meaningful gap an agent must guess through.

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 description coverage is 0% for 6 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It usefully explains query (regex), start (Unix seconds), fulltext (includes descriptions), and hints that filters accept time bounds, but says nothing about limit or channel_uuid, and leaves the opaque array-of-objects filters structure unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search upcoming EPG programmes') and adds the crucial qualifier that the query is a Tvheadend regular expression, which an agent could not infer from the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as tvh_schedule_recording, though the handoff sentence implies the division of labor.

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 tells the agent what to do next with the results ('Results contain eventId for schedule_recording'), which is a real usage signal. However, it never says when not to use this tool or how it relates to the other 30+ sibling tools (e.g., tvh_get_node, tvh_list_channels), so selection guidance is only implied.

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