list_livetv_epg_lineupchannels

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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already carry the safety profile, and the description is consistent with them, revealing a GET endpoint that matches the read-only, idempotent hints. It adds the concrete API path, which is useful context beyond the annotations. However, it discloses nothing additional about pagination, result format, or the open-world behavior that the openWorldHint flags.

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 every element earns its place: the purpose sentence is front-loaded, the endpoint line provides the concrete HTTP path, and the Args section documents the sole parameter. There is zero filler or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. The main gaps are the absence of sibling differentiation (which decides when the agent should select this tool over the many related EPG listers) and the unresolved lineup URI format. These are material enough to prevent a higher score.

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. It does add real semantics: 'lineup: The URIs describing the lineups' tells the agent the parameter values are URIs, which the bare schema (untyped array or null with no descriptions) utterly fails to convey. But it stops short of explaining the array semantics — whether multiple URIs in the array are aggregated, what URI format is expected, or the relationship to the 'multiple lineups' claim in the purpose sentence.

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 and resource: 'Get the channels for multiple lineups.' The qualifier 'multiple' meaningfully signals the batch nature of the call, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_livetv_epg_lineup (which returns lineups) and hinting at scope versus list_livetv_epg_channels. It includes the concrete endpoint path. However, it does not explicitly state how it differs from the closely named list_livetv_epg_channels sibling.

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. The sibling space is dense with overlapping EPG tools (list_livetv_epg_lineup, list_livetv_epg_channels, list_livetv_epg_channelmap, list_livetv_epg_guide, and the country/region lineage tools), and the description offers no conditions, exclusions, or references to any of them. An agent must infer usage purely from the terse purpose statement.

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