list_series

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond that—it does not mention prerequisites, side effects, edge cases, or return format. The description essentially restates the operation without enhancing the information provided by the 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 compact: a one-line purpose, the HTTP endpoint, and a terse arg list. It front-loads the main action and avoids filler. The structure is logical but slightly technical (the 'Args:' block is plain text rather than formatted). No sentence is wasted, so it's concise and efficient.

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?

There is an output schema (present but not shown), so return values are covered. However, the description leaves a critical ambiguity: it says 'for specific series' but the seriesid parameter is optional per the schema. It does not clarify whether omitting seriesid returns all series, nor how pagination interacts with filtering. For a tool with only three optional params, this omission could lead an agent to assume seriesid is mandatory or to misuse filtering. More context (e.g., 'If seriesid is omitted, all series are returned') would be needed.

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. The 'Args:' section does provide basic meanings: start (paging start), length (paging length), and seriesid (Series IDs to get metadata for). This adds value over the bare schema, but it's incomplete: it doesn't explain the data type/shape of seriesid (array? strings vs ints?), the default behavior when parameters are null, or the semantics of combining paging with seriesid. It's a minimal but present improvement.

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 'List series metadata for specific series', specifying the verb (List), resource (series metadata), and a scoping qualifier ('specific series'). This distinguishes it from list_episodes, list_movies, and list_series_tags by the resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools or clarify whether 'specific' implies required filtering, which could be ambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_series_tags or list_episodes. The description only provides the endpoint and params, not context about selection criteria or exclusions. The 'for specific series' phrasing hints at usage but leaves when-to-use implicit, and no mention of alternatives is made.

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