shows_release_calendar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the estimation method (median interval), scope (saved shows), and default budget (30 show lookups). However, it does not mention edge cases (e.g., shows with insufficient publish history to compute a median), potential side effects (none stated, though the computation implies read-only), or how the 'lookup budget' is consumed.

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 a single well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and method, then appends only the essential default note. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy or filler.

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 compute-style tool with 3 optional, fully self-describing params and no output schema, the description covers the what, how, scope, and default behavior. The response_format enum in the schema handles return-style details. The main gap is edge-case behavior for shows lacking enough publish history, but this is minor for a heuristic estimation tool.

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%, and each parameter (max_shows, max_results, response_format) already has a clear description in the schema. The description only echoes the max_shows default ('Defaults to 30 show lookups') and adds no new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Estimate'), a precise resource ('saved show's next expected release'), and the methodology ('median interval between the latest publishes'). The forward-calendar framing clearly distinguishes this predictive tool from sibling tools like list_show_episodes, get_newly_released_episodes, and shows_without_new_episodes, which deal with existing or past release data.

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 use case is implied ('a forward calendar for your subscriptions') — an agent can infer it is for planning future releases rather than listing current ones. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are given, and no alternative tools are named. Given the large sibling list containing several shows-related tools, explicit routing would have helped.

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