srgssr_video_get_shows

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses non-obvious behavior: the API groups shows by first letter, omitting character_filter triggers 27 queries, and page_size applies per letter. This performance and pagination context is highly valuable and not present in structured annotations.

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 a concise main sentence, a use_case tag, important_notes tags, and an example. Every sentence adds meaningful information, and the crucial performance caveat is prominently placed. No filler 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 output schema exists (no need to describe return values) and annotations cover safety, the description fully covers the operational context: catalog browsing, performance trade-offs, filtering behavior, pagination, and a pointer to the related episodes tool. This is complete for a listing 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?

With schema description coverage reported as 0%, the description compensates thoroughly. It explains the character_filter parameter (letters or #, omission triggers all letters), clarifies page_size per-letter behavior, and gives a concrete example. Page is left to standard pagination defaults, but the critical parameters are richly explained.

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 lists TV shows of an SRG SSR business unit with title, ID, and description. It distinguishes from related tools by explicitly referencing episodes via srgssr_video_get_episodes and by the TV-specific scope versus audio/livestream siblings.

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?

It provides explicit use cases (catalog browsing, program analysis) and clear guidance on when to omit character_filter (full catalog, 27 queries) versus using it (single query). It also directs users to srgssr_video_get_episodes for episodes, effectively saying when not to use this tool.

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