search_shows

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 only states the basic search function and does not mention any behavioral traits such as being read-only, how results are ordered, what 'include_related' does, or any other limitations. This is a significant gap for a search tool with hidden complexities.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail and every word earns its place, achieving maximum conciseness.

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 has five parameters, no required inputs, and an output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the behavior of 'include_related' or 'limit', and the lack of usage guidance leaves the agent without a complete picture. The output schema might clarify return values, but the description fails to cover key parameters and behavioral context.

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 mentions three of the five parameters (year, city, venue), giving them some semantic meaning as filter criteria. However, it completely omits 'limit' and 'include_related', leaving those parameters unexplained. The schema coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('shows'), and specifies the search criteria ('by year, city, and/or venue name'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'random_show' or 'latest_show', which serve different purposes.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. It does not mention that 'random_show' or 'latest_show' are alternative ways to find shows, nor does it give any context for when a search is appropriate. Without such direction, the agent is left to infer usage entirely.

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