get_tv_by_tv_id_similar

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. However, it adds only the endpoint and basic parameter types, without describing pagination behavior, language format conventions, or how results are ordered. Given the annotations, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is structured.

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 concise but somewhat redundant. The endpoint line is useful, but the 'Args' section merely repeats parameter names and roles that are already evident from the schema. It is not front-loaded with the most important information (usage differentiation) and includes some 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values, but it still lacks essential context: the format for 'language', how pagination works, and critical distinction from 'recommendations'. An agent would not know how to properly set the language or when to prefer this over similar endpoints. The description is incomplete for correct invocation.

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 lists the three parameters (tv_id, page, language) but only labels them as path/query parameters without explaining their semantics (e.g., page meaning pagination, language as ISO 639-1). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's type information, and does not help the agent format values correctly.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get similar TV series.' It distinguishes from the base 'get_tv_by_tv_id' (which likely retrieves the series itself) but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'get_tv_by_tv_id_recommendations' (recommendations vs similar). The purpose is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 'get_tv_by_tv_id_recommendations'. It does not mention the context of 'similar' (e.g., based on genre, keywords) or when it is preferable. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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