get_tv_by_tv_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description is consistent with them, confirming a safe GET operation. It adds the endpoint path and parameter locations but does not disclose response behavior, error cases, or language-handling semantics. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 very concise and well structured: one clear statement of the operation, the endpoint, then two focused argument lines. Every line earns its place and there is no filler.

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 two-parameter read operation with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is nearly adequate for invocation. But it lacks context for choosing among the get_tv_by_tv_id_* siblings and does not specify the expected language format. The gaps are moderate, not severe.

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 carries the burden for explaining parameters. It usefully clarifies that tv_id is a path parameter and language is a query parameter, which the JSON Schema does not directly encode. However, it gives no detail about tv_id's meaning beyond the name, nor what language values are accepted or how they affect the response.

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 TV details' and identifies the endpoint GET /api/v1/tv/{tvId}. It is not a pure tautology, and 'details' plausibly distinguishes the base TV endpoint from sibling tools like ratings, recommendations, and similar. However, it does not explicitly say 'base details, not ratings or recommendations', so sibling differentiation is left mostly to the names.

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 the many sibling get_tv_by_tv_id_* tools. The description only provides the endpoint and parameters, not context such as 'use this for base metadata' or 'use the ratings variant for scores'. An agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.

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