seerr_get_discover_tv_network

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. However, the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination behavior, language defaulting, or what the response contains. It does not contradict the annotation, but it offers no value beyond it.

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 sentence with no wasted words, which is concise. However, it is under-specified and largely restates the tool name, so it does not fully earn its place. A concise description still needs to convey useful information beyond the name; this one barely does.

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?

The tool is simple, but the description omits important context: how network_id is obtained (likely from seerr_get_network), what page/language do, and what the output looks like. Although an output schema exists, the description does not reference it or any related tools. For a tool with three parameters and no parameter descriptions, more context is needed.

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 should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'network', which aligns with network_id, but says nothing about page or language. The description does not clarify that network_id is required, how to specify a page, or how language affects results. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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') and the resource ('TV shows by network'), which specifies the scope and distinguishes it from sibling tools like seerr_get_discover_tv_genre or seerr_get_discover_tv_language. However, it stops short of a 5 because the phrasing is a near-paraphrase of the tool name itself, adding little new specificity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining a valid network_id via seerr_get_network) or any exclusions. The only clue is the name, which implies network-based discovery, but that is not spelled out in the description.

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