video_tv

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds only a source URL and return type, which does not disclose any additional behavioral traits (e.g., data freshness, pagination, rate limits). No contradiction with annotations, but minimal added context.

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 extremely concise (three lines), but it largely repeats the title and provides only a URL plus return type. It is not overly verbose, but the information is somewhat sparse and the URL may be of limited use to an agent. It is front-loaded with the title, yet the lack of any substantive explanation makes it under-specified.

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 that the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential facts: source (Endata), resource type (TV series), and return format (pandas.DataFrame). For a simple data retrieval tool, this is largely sufficient. However, it does not specify what fields or granularity the data contains, which could be useful but is not critical for invoking the tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for 0-parameter tools. The description's return type adds slight clarity but is not required for parameter understanding.

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 identifies the tool as returning 电视剧集 (TV series) data from the 艺恩 (Endata) platform, with a URL and return type. While the description is essentially a title plus return annotation, it is specific enough to distinguish it from video_variety_show (variety shows) and other media tools. However, it lacks a directive verb like 'fetch' or 'get'.

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 alternatives, nor any exclusions. The context of 'video_tv' versus 'video_variety_show' implies usage, but the description itself does not state that this is for TV series data retrieval or when to prefer it over other tools.

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