list_livetv_epg_channels

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, so the baseline safety is established. However, the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., what happens if lineup is null, whether results are paginated), only restates the purpose.

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, with the core statement on the first line. The endpoint line and parameter clarification are useful, but more content could be packed in without verbosity.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations, the description does not need to cover return shape or read behavior. Still it is incomplete in that it offers no how-to for obtaining the lineup URI and doesn't distinguish itself from its sibling tools, which is essential for correct selection.

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%, but the description adds that lineup is a 'URI describing the lineup,' giving some meaning beyond a bare string. It is still vague and doesn't explain the URI's structure or where to get it, but it does provide a basic semantic hint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get channels for a lineup'), so an agent knows what it does. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling list_livetv_epg_lineupchannels or list_livetv_epg_channelmap, so differentiation is missing.

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 usage context or guidance is given. It doesn't explain when to use this tool over list_livetv_epg_lineupchannels or mention prerequisite steps like obtaining a lineup URI, so an agent is left guessing.

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