discover_television

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: defaults to TMDB service, pagination with page numbers, result limits (max 100), error conditions (ValueError, RuntimeError, ConnectionError), and the complete return structure. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating this is a read-only operation, though 'discovers' implies 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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and front-loads the core purpose. While comprehensive, it could be slightly more concise by integrating some parameter details into the opening sentence rather than separate sections, but every sentence adds necessary value.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is complete. It covers purpose, all parameters with semantics, return values (though output schema exists, the description provides helpful context), error conditions, and service defaults. No significant gaps remain for agent understanding.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing comprehensive parameter documentation. Each of the 6 parameters is clearly explained with examples, default values, constraints (e.g., 'max: 100'), and usage guidance (e.g., 'use list_genres to find IDs'). The description adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Discovers television shows based on optional filters' with specific resources (television shows) and actions (discover with filtering). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'discover_films' by specifying television shows and from 'list_genres' by focusing on discovery rather than listing.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (discovering TV shows with filtering) and mentions using 'list_genres' to find genre IDs, which implies an alternative tool for that purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or compare it directly with 'discover_films' for media type selection.

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