list_livetv_epg_channelmap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only that this is a GET endpoint and that a computation ('best') occurs — no context about how inputs are consumed, what happens when they are omitted, or whether results depend on server state. No contradiction with 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 three compact parts: a one-sentence summary, the endpoint, and a short args list. Zero filler, the key statement is front-loaded, and the structure mirrors common doc conventions. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of substantive content.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema and safety-carrying annotations, most bases are covered: purpose, endpoint, and both parameters are documented. The clear gaps are the meaning of 'best channel map' and how this tool relates to the adjacent EPG lineup tools (list_livetv_epg_lineup, list_livetv_epg_lineupchannels), which an agent needs to reliably choose the correct 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?

Schema coverage is 0% (parameters are generically typed string/null with defaults), so the description bears the full burden and it compensates minimally: it defines device and lineup as URIs with distinct roles. However, it does not say how these URIs are obtained, what URI formats are valid, whether both must be supplied together, or what 'best' means relative to them, leaving the agent to guess at the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb ('Compute') and names a resource ('channel map'), so it is not a tautology. However, 'best channel map' is ambiguous — it never defines what makes a map 'best' — and the description does not distinguish this tool from closely related siblings such as list_livetv_epg_lineup, list_livetv_epg_lineupchannels, or update_media_grabbers_devices_by_device_id_channelmap.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus its sibling EPG tools, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. The only usage signal is the parameter names (device, lineup), which imply the tool consumes those two inputs, but the agent is given no decision rule for choosing this over list_livetv_epg_lineup or list_livetv_epg_lineupchannels.

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