get_series_history

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, but it only restates scope. It doesn't mention ordering of history entries, pagination or result caps, whether event_type filtering is exclusive, or how include_series/include_episode reshape the payload. The read-only nature is inferable from the 'get' verb, but little else is 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?

One precise sentence with zero filler: the verb and resource are front-loaded, and the optional scoping clause is appended compactly. For a simple get tool this is exactly the right size.

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?

Minimum viable: the description states the scope and the schema fully documents all five parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the return format (history item fields), sort order, and pagination behavior are unspecified — details an agent may need to correctly interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3 even with no parameter detail in the description. The phrase 'optionally narrowed to a single season' adds marginal framing around season_number, but the description doesn't elaborate on event_type enum semantics or include_* payload effects — though the schema already documents these adequately.

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 (get), resource (full history), and scope (one series, optionally a single season). The 'for one series' scoping differentiates it in intent from siblings like get_history and get_history_since, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly, which keeps it from a 5.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the closely related history siblings (get_history, get_history_since) or when to narrow by season versus fetching full history. The only usage context is the weak implication in the phrase 'for one series,' so an agent gets no support for tool-selection decisions.

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