BetaSeries: planning

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of transparency. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Display' for each operation and includes the HTTP method GET, which signals non-mutating behavior. However, it omits authentication requirements, potential errors, or pagination details, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 a clear introductory line followed by a bulleted list of operations. Each operation is concisely summarized with endpoint, purpose, and parameters, ensuring every sentence carries useful information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 absence of an output schema and the multi-operation complexity, the description provides substantial context: endpoints, parameter details, and operation purposes. It stops short of covering authentication, response formats, or error handling, which would be valuable for a complete contextual picture.

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 schema only provides a generic 'params' object with no property definitions, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It lists each operation's parameters with names, types, defaults, and explanatory descriptions, fully compensating for the schema's opacity.

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 explicitly states it calls the BetaSeries 'planning' API and lists three specific operations with their endpoints and purposes. This clearly identifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle different domains (e.g., persons, badges, shows).

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 instructs 'Pick an operation' and details each operation's functionality, giving clear context on when to use each. However, it does not explicitly discuss when to choose this tool over siblings, though the unique resource name implies its niche.

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