mdl_explore_currently_watching

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish that this is a safe, repeatable, open-world read. The description adds only that params is an 'upstream' passthrough, which hints at proxy behavior but says nothing about paging, freshness, or scope; that is modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Two short sentences with no padding and the purpose front-loaded, so nothing is wasted. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined 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?

No output schema and an undocumented free-form params object mean the description must carry the burden of explaining what gets returned and what should go into params; it does neither. For a tool sitting in a dense explore family, this leaves the agent unable to call it confidently.

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% and the single param is an untyped object (anyOf object/null). The description only says 'params is a JSON object of upstream parameters', which is essentially a restatement of the schema title 'Params' and provides no key names, casing, or expected shape to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

"Explore: currently watching" largely restates the tool name and never clarifies what the resource actually is — the user's personal watch state, or a global 'most-watched right now' feed. With siblings like mdl_explore_trending, mdl_explore_top_airing and mdl_explore_upcoming, the distinction matters and the description gives the agent no basis to tell them apart.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the other mdl_explore_* variants, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer selection purely from the name.

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