saved_shows_publisher_census

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly states this is read-only, covers the entire saved-shows shelf, defaults to top 10 publishers, and defaults to 'concise' prose output. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what the schema alone conveys, though it doesn't disclose rate-limit or failure behavior.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose, scope, read-only nature, default behavior, and output style with zero filler. The key behavioral facts are 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 read-only aggregation tool with three well-documented optional parameters, the description covers essential context: scope, purpose, defaults, and output style. It doesn't detail response structure, but no output schema exists and this is a simple census/ranking tool, so the gap is minor.

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%, so parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces that top_n defaults to 10 and response_format defaults to 'concise', but it doesn't add additional semantic nuance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Count'), a specific resource ('your saved shows'), and the aggregation dimension ('by publisher'). It also distinguishes itself as a read-only census over the whole shelf, which clearly separates it from show-related siblings like list_saved_shows or get_show_details.

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 clearly frames this as a census/ranking operation over saved shows, making it easy to infer when to use it versus a simple listing or detail lookup. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the phrase 'read-only census over the whole shelf' and the ranking intent provide strong usage context.

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