whats_on

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It discloses that times are in Europe/Copenhagen and includes fields like duration and categories, but does not mention error handling (e.g., if channel is invalid), rate limits, or side effects. The description is adequate but not exhaustive.

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, well-organized paragraph that starts with the core purpose, includes example queries, and clarifies parameter usage. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 two parameters with full schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers essential aspects: purpose, parameter format, and example usage. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning what happens if no programme is found, but overall it is sufficient for a straightforward query 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining that the 'channel' parameter accepts names or numeric IDs and that the 'when' parameter supports ISO 8601 or HH:MM shorthand, which goes beyond the schema's basic description.

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 returns the programme currently airing on a Danish TV channel or at a specified time, listing included fields (title, times, duration, etc.) and providing example queries. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_channels' and 'search_program' by focusing on current/specific-time airings.

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 gives explicit usage examples (e.g., 'hvad går der på DR1 nu?'), which clearly indicate when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like 'tonight', leaving some implicit guidance.

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