seerr_get_tv_similar

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, language handling, response structure, or any side effects. Since the annotation already covers read-only safety, the description offers no extra transparency about how the tool behaves in practice.

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 concise sentence with no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it is almost too minimal, bordering on under-specification rather than effective brevity, but it does state the essential action clearly.

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?

While the output schema and annotations provide some context, the description lacks sufficient guidance for a tool with three parameters and similar sibling tools. It does not address pagination semantics, language defaults, or when to use this tool. Given the availability of output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and selection criteria.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. However, the description does not mention tv_id, page, or language at all. The agent is left to infer parameter meanings solely from names and types, which is insufficient given no additional documentation.

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 similar TV series' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (similar TV series), with the scope implied by the required tv_id parameter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like seerr_get_tv_recommendations and seerr_get_movie_similar by specifying 'similar TV series' rather than 'recommendations' or movie equivalents.

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 when to prefer it over seerr_get_tv_recommendations or other discovery tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites. It is purely a one-line action statement.

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