Search Programmes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it describes result shape (every channel carrying a guide entry, best catch-up bet first), ordering (newest first), and the drop-if-none behaviour of catchup_only. It omits pagination/limit behaviour and any auth or rate-limit notes.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the remaining text is dense with facts rather than filler. The inline `channel:` label mid-paragraph is slightly awkward structurally but wastes no words.

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?

An output schema exists, so the extra prose about result fields is redundant though harmless. The real gap is that the unannotated `when` and `search_descriptions` switches are left undefined, which for an 8-parameter search tool is a meaningful omission.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: query matching rules, a channel example, and the hours_back/hours_ahead window are explained. However `when`, `limit`, and `search_descriptions` receive no explanation at all, leaving three of eight parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ("Search the TV guide by programme title") plus a matching rule ("all words must match"). That is enough to separate it from channel_schedule or programme_details, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 explains the time window and the catchup_only narrowing, but gives no guidance on when to use this versus programme_details or channel_schedule. It also never mentions the `when` enum, which is the primary way to scope a search to past/now/upcoming, so the agent must infer usage from the schema alone.

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