list_episodes_wanted

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

The description discloses the GET endpoint, which aligns with and mildly extends the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). With the annotations already covering the safety profile, the added value is limited to confirming the HTTP verb and endpoint; nothing is said about result-set semantics, paging behavior, or filtering effects, but there is no contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and three terse argument lines. No filler. The Args block partially duplicates what the schema already conveys (names and types), but since it carries the only parameter semantics, it earns its place.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with a full output schema and strong annotations, the definition is mostly adequate. The main gaps are that 'wanted' is never explained, and the semantics of episodeid as a filter (single ID vs. array, union vs. intersection with paging) are left to inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add minimal meaning beyond the schema: start and length are labeled 'paging' integers and episodeid is labeled 'Episodes ID to list'. This is genuine but thin guidance — it does not clarify defaults, zero-based paging, or how episodeid interacts with paging.

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 and resource ('List episodes wanted subtitles') and includes the exact HTTP endpoint (GET /api/episodes/wanted), which disambiguates it from siblings like list_episodes, list_episodes_blacklist, and list_episodes_history. The phrasing is grammatically awkward ('episodes wanted subtitles' vs. 'wanted episodes'), and the 'wanted' concept is not defined, but the intent is discernible.

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?

No guidance is given on when to select this tool over alternatives such as list_episodes, list_episodes_history, or list_movies_wanted. There is no context, no exclusions, and no mention of what makes an episode 'wanted', so the agent must infer the use case entirely from the name.

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