srgssr_epg_get_programs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is only available for SRF/RTS/RSI (not RTR/SWI), channel_id must use hyphens (e.g., 'srf-1' not 'srf1'), and RTS radio channels use uppercase. This goes beyond annotations and helps avoid common errors.

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 well-structured with clear tags: <use_case>, <important_notes>, and <example>. It front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, then layers guidance. Each section is necessary and contributes to correct usage. The examples are particularly concise and helpful.

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?

The description is comprehensive for the tool's complexity. It covers purpose, use cases, availability constraints, channel_id formatting, known channels, and examples. Since an output schema exists, return values don't need to be described. The description fully prepares an agent to 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?

The schema coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the channel_id format, provides an extensive list of valid channel_id values per business unit and broadcast type, and gives concrete examples with business_unit, broadcast_type, channel_id, and date. This is far more useful than the bare schema.

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 verb 'abrufen' (retrieve) and the resource: the complete EPG program schedule for an SRG SSR TV or radio station for a specific day. It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like video/audio/weather/polis, which are clearly different domains.

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 a clear use case (TV/radio program previews, editorial tips) and important notes about availability, channel_id format, and known stations. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the sibling tools are obviously different, making the usage context sufficiently clear.

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