seerr_get_discover_tv_language

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, so no contradiction. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond what the annotation and name convey—no mention of pagination, response format, or any side effects. Since the annotation covers the main safety concern, the description is not harmful but also does not enrich understanding.

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, tightly composed sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and filter. There is no wasted wording or unnecessary detail, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool has three parameters (one required) and zero schema descriptions, a one-line description is insufficient. It lacks information about how parameters interact, what the output structure is (even though an output schema exists), and any usage context. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but the parameter ambiguity and missing guidance still make the description incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies that 'language' refers to original language, but it does not explain the format or expected values, and it completely ignores 'page' and 'language_q'. This leaves a required parameter and two optional ones underspecified, making parameter usage ambiguous.

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 clearly states the action ('Discover'), the resource ('TV shows'), and the specific filter ('by original language'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like seerr_get_discover_tv_genre or seerr_get_discover_tv_network, so the purpose is precise and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or contrast with related discover tools (e.g., seerr_list_discover_tv or other by-language tools). Usage is only implied by the name and the minimal phrase, but there is no explicit context or decision help.

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