get_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the endpoint itself—no details about response structure, error conditions, or required auth. It provides zero incremental disclosure, so it fails to add value beyond 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 short and front-loaded with 'Get a single DVR,' but it includes a redundant HTTP path (GET /livetv/dvrs/{dvrId}) that duplicates information already inferable from the tool name and endpoint. This is minor waste, so it's not an exemplar of conciseness but not bloated either.

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 single-ID retrieval with one parameter and an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. It doesn't need to explain return values because the output schema exists. It omits any mention of errors or prerequisites, but given annotations cover safety and the schema covers return structure, this is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.

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 for the undocumented parameter. It only repeats 'dvr_id: The ID of the DVR,' which adds no more meaning than the parameter name and title already provide. No constraints, examples, or context are given, leaving the compensation inadequate.

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 'Get a single DVR,' which specifies the verb and resource. The name and this phrasing distinguish it from list_livetv_dvrs (plural) and related DVR endpoints like get_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_guide or channels, so an agent can identify its exact purpose.

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 implies usage by focusing on a single DVR, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_livetv_dvrs or get_livetv_dvrs_by_dvr_id_guide). No explicit exclusions or comparisons are provided, leaving the decision to inference from naming.

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