tvmaze_show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only 'full details,' hinting at a comprehensive payload, but says nothing about response shape, error behavior for invalid IDs, or rate limits.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste; the lookup key is placed at the end where it naturally belongs.

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?

For a one-parameter idempotent read with full annotation coverage, the definition is essentially complete. The only residual gap is that 'full details' is not elaborated (which fields, whether nested), but no output schema exists to cover that.

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 single 'id' parameter is 100% documented in the schema as 'TVmaze show ID', and the description reinforces the same meaning. No additional syntax or format detail (e.g. numeric, example value) is added beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('a TV show') plus the identifying key ('by its TVmaze ID'). This implicitly distinguishes it from tvmaze_search, which would be used without an ID, but the sibling is not named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — the agent can infer it should be used when a TVmaze numeric ID is already known, and that tvmaze_search is the alternative when it isn't. No explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative is given.

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