seerr_list_watchproviders_tv

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, which already declares a read operation. It does not mention the required watch_region parameter, response format, or any other constraints. The text is essentially a restatement of the tool name.

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?

While short, the description is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It is a fragmented phrase with awkward grammar, providing minimal useful information. A well-structured sentence with clear context would earn its place better.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns, how the watch_region parameter affects results, or what 'watch provider series' means. The tool is not complex, but the description is too sparse for an agent to confidently invoke it without relying on implicit knowledge from the name.

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 description completely ignores the watch_region parameter. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent receives no explanation of what the parameter means, its allowed format, or why it is required. The tool name and parameter name hint at a region code, but the description provides no additional 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 watch provider series' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (watch providers for TV series). It distinguishes from the sibling tool seerr_list_watchproviders_movies by specifying 'series', even though it doesn't explicitly say 'TV'. The phrasing is slightly awkward but not a tautology.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like seerr_list_watchproviders_movies or seerr_list_watchproviders_regions. No prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name.

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