srgssr_audio_get_shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: channel_id is mandatory and sourced from a specific sister tool, shows are grouped by initial letter, without character_filter all 27 letters are queried and merged (vs a single query with filter), and audio catalogs often contain podcasts. This exceeds annotation coverage without contradicting it.

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?

Description is concise and well-structured with a main purpose, use_case, important_notes, and an example. Every section adds distinct value: purpose states the verb and resource, use_case gives context, important_notes capture non-obvious behavior, and example illustrates parameter usage. No fluff or 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 the tool's moderate complexity (pagination, letter grouping, dependency on another tool), the description covers the most critical aspects: channel_id requirement, letter-filter behavior, and podcast presence. It does not explicitly detail how pagination interacts with the merged 27-letter query, but the output schema exists, so return values are already specified. Overall it is sufficient for safe invocation.

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 already describes business_unit, channel_id, and character_filter. The description adds value by explaining the character_filter's impact on query count/merging and clarifying that channel_id comes from srgssr_audio_get_livestreams. Page/page_size are not explained, but that is a minor gap given the schema presence and the tool's simplicity.

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?

Purpose is clearly stated as 'Listet Radiosendungen eines SRG SSR Radiokanals auf' (lists radio shows of a SRG SSR radio channel). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying audio shows per channel, and adds details about letter grouping and podcast inclusion that differentiate it from video show and episode tools.

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?

Provides a clear use case ('Katalog-Browsing für Radio- und Podcast-Formate') and important notes about requiring channel_id from srgssr_audio_get_livestreams. It explains when to use the character_filter (single query) vs no filter (all 27 letters), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it lacks a full 'when-not-to-use' statement.

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