get_tv_by_tv_id_ratings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the exact HTTP method and endpoint path, which is useful for invocation but doesn't disclose any behavioral quirks (e.g., rating source, caching, or response shape). It provides modest additional context beyond annotations and does not contradict them.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose, and includes the endpoint and parameter in a structured format. Every line earns its place with no redundant or filler text.

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 operation with one parameter and an output schema present, this description is nearly complete. It gives the endpoint, parameter, and is backed by annotations covering safety. It lacks explicit usage direction, but that is already penalized in usage_guidelines. No critical invocation details are missing.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by specifying that tv_id is a path parameter and showing the endpoint template. This is valuable semantic information beyond the schema's type/title. It doesn't explain what the ID represents, but that's obvious from context.

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 'Get TV ratings' states a clear verb and resource, and the name and endpoint make it distinct from ratings for movies or other TV endpoints. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_tv_by_tv_id, but the 'ratings' suffix makes intent unambiguous. Slightly higher would require explicit contrast.

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. It doesn't mention when to prefer ratings over recommendations or the base TV info endpoint. An agent must infer from the name/endpoint alone. No exclusions or context are given.

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