Check Recording

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well. It discloses the side effect (a brief 1 KB request), the resource impact (uses one account connection momentarily), and the exact conditions under which the call refuses: all connections busy unless force=True, and while a download is running.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The live-check purpose is front-loaded, followed by the mechanism and the operational constraints, so every sentence earns its place.

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 three-parameter check tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and refusal conditions well enough to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is that the two required ID parameters are not semantically described, though the output schema reduces the need to explain return values.

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 needs to compensate for all three parameters. It explains force=True in context, but stream_id and programme_id are only indirectly implied by 'this channel's catch-up recording of a programme' and receive no explicit meaning or format guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: asking the provider whether a channel's catch-up recording for a programme currently exists. It also clarifies the check is live rather than trusting the advertised window. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings such as programme_details or download_status, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It clearly explains when the check is useful and why the advertised window is insufficient. It also gives concrete refusal conditions: all connections in use unless force=True, and while a download is running. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use this check, so it is not a 5.

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