list_livetv_epg_search

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations already provide (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). It does not explain how a 'search' works with no query parameters, or what results look like. The gap is notable for a tool whose name implies parameters but whose schema is empty.

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, with two lines: 'Search EPG.' and the endpoint. It is concise but the endpoint is redundant with the tool nameamentthe form is minimal rather than informative. It earns its place by adding the HTTP method and path, though these are largely inferable.

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 tool with no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is barely sufficient. It does not explain what the search returns, how it differs from sibling EPG endpoints, or why no parameters are required. An agent would struggle to know when to invoke this 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?

With zero parameters busy, schema coverage is 100% and the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain individual parameters, and the empty schema accurately reflects that no parameters are needed. However, the name suggests a query parameter, so a note about the param-less nature would help.

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: 'Search EPG.' It clearly indicates the tool searches the Electronic Program Guide. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_livetv_epg_guide or list_livetv_epg_channels, relying on the tool name to do that.

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 description only provides the endpoint, with no mention of search criteria, limitations, or contrasts with other EPG-related tools.

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