seerr_get_network

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true indicates a safe read operation, and the description does not contradict this. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what the annotation already implies, such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what exactly 'details' includes. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is minimally adequate.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the key information.

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 simple getter with an output schema and one self-explanatory parameter, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any usage context, such as when to retrieve network details (e.g., after searching) or how this differs from other network-related tools, making it only partially complete.

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 for parameter documentation. The name 'network_id' is self-explanatory, but the description does not elaborate on what this ID is, where to find it, or any expected format beyond the schema's type. This fails to add meaningful value.

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 'Get TV network details' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (TV network details), making the tool's purpose immediately understood. It is distinct from sibling tools like seerr_get_discover_tv_network or seerr_list_settings_network, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from them.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools (e.g., seerr_get_discover_tv_network, seerr_list_settings_network). The description gives no context for when this tool is the right choice, leaving the agent to infer based on naming alone.

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