op3_compare_shows

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: the request accepts many shows at once and returns ranked comparison data across monthly downloads and weekly average. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core function, the second explains batching efficiency, and the third gives concrete use cases. The key elements are 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 single parameter, the read-only annotations, and the clear purpose, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool. It does not detail the output format, but no output schema exists and the ranked comparison result is reasonably inferable from the description.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, including the accepted identifier formats, the 2-to-20 item limit, and the extra lookup cost for non-UUID identifiers. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('compare'), a clear resource ('several shows side by side'), and concrete metrics ('monthly downloads and weekly average, ranked'). This clearly distinguishes it from single-show tools like op3_get_show or op3_show_downloads.

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 explains when this tool is appropriate: benchmarking a show against category peers or tracking multiple shows at once. It also notes that one request handles many shows, implying it should be preferred over repeated single-show calls, though it does not name specific alternatives.

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