srgssr_epg_get_programs

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about the full schedule and availability constraints. There is no contradiction. It provides useful behavioral context beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise and well-structured using HTML-like tags for use_case, important_notes, and example. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 (3 parameters), the presence of an output schema, and the clear description covering purpose, usage, limitations, and an example, the description is fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is reported as 0%, the actual input schema includes descriptions for business_unit (explaining availability). The main description adds an example and notes, providing clarity on parameter usage. The schema and description together offer sufficient semantic meaning.

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 retrieves the full program plan (Electronic Program Guide) of an SRG SSR TV or radio channel for a specific day. It uses a specific verb ('abrufen') and resource ('Programmplan'), and the tool is distinct from sibling tools which focus on audio/video episodes, weather, etc.

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 includes explicit use cases ('TV-/Radio-Programmvorschauen, redaktionelle Programm-Tipps') and important notes about availability (only SRF, RTS, RSI; not RTR/SWI). While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, the context is clear and sufficient for decision-making.

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