list_livetv_epg_languages

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile: readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint are all present and mutually consistent. The description adds only the scope word 'all' and the HTTP endpoint, neither of which discloses meaningful behavior beyond what the name and annotations already convey. No information is provided about response contents, ordering, or limitations.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: a single clear sentence plus the endpoint reference. It contains no wasted words, though it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given that this is a no-parameter, read-only, idempotent listing operation with a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description is essentially sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool safely. The only missing context—such as explicitly saying 'EPG languages'—is minor and recoverable from the tool name and endpoint.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools applies here; the description does not need to compensate for any parameter gaps.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all languages'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_livetv_epg_channels or list_livetv_epg_countries by naming the resource directly. However, it does not explicitly say these are EPG/Live TV languages, leaving that context to the tool name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_livetv_epg_countries or list_livetv_epg_lineup. There is no mention of use cases, prerequisites, or conditions that would route an agent to this tool.

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