get_show_details

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavior context: the output defaults to 'concise' prose and the tool returns a defined field set, with 'Fetch' implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explain what 'detailed' adds over 'concise', how errors or missing shows are handled, or explicitly confirm there are no side effects.

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 short sentences with zero filler: the action and resource come first, the field list is compactly parenthesized, and the default behavior is stated last. Every word earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 3-parameter tool with fully documented schema this is largely sufficient for the core invocation path. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, the description should reveal what the 'detailed' format includes beyond the listed fields and should more explicitly confirm the read-only safety profile. Adequate for calling correctly, but with clear disclosure gaps.

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 100%: show_id, market, and response_format all have descriptions, and every enum value is explained ('concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object). The description only restates the 'concise' default, which the schema's default field already declares, adding no new meaning beyond the structured data.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('full metadata for one show') and enumerates concrete fields (description, publisher, episode count, languages, media type). The phrase 'one show' implicitly distinguishes it from batch siblings like get_several_shows, and 'metadata' sets it apart from episode-listing tools like get_show_episodes, though it never explicitly differentiates itself from the similarly named raw sibling get_show.

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 on when to choose this tool over close alternatives such as get_show, get_several_shows, or show_episode_search. The 'Defaults to concise prose' note hints at one behavioral aspect but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection conditions, leaving the agent to infer when this wrapper is preferable to the raw get_show call.

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