create_shows_by_id_report

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description does not contradict them. It adds a modest behavioral cue — that this is a POST mutation whose payload shape is defined by the matching GET/schema — which is useful for the openWorld body parameter. However, it adds little else beyond what the annotations convey, so with the annotations doing the heavy lifting a 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly formatted (endpoint, then args), with no wasted words. But it is under-specified rather than concisely complete: the one-line purpose 'Report a show' is thin and the body guidance, while helpful, is generic and could apply to any endpoint. It is efficient in length but the content is minimal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description's pointer to the GET/schema endpoint mitigates the openWorld body field. The main gap is purpose ambiguity — the agent still does not know what a 'report' is or what the tool accomplishes. For a 2-parameter tool this is adequate but not complete, so a 3 fits.

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 full burden, and it compensates reasonably. It explains id is 'the id/slug of the resource' and, crucially, tells the agent to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint to discover the body fields — essential because body has additionalProperties:true and the schema itself documents nothing. This is genuinely helpful guidance for an otherwise opaque free-form payload.

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 verb and resource ('Report a show') plus the endpoint, so it is not a tautology. However, 'report' is ambiguous — it is never clarified whether this submits an abuse report, requests a content report, or something else. It also does not differentiate itself from many sibling report tools (create_episodes_by_id_report, create_movies_by_id_report, create_seasons_by_id_report), which are identical in form.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions. With roughly a dozen sibling report tools, the agent gets no signal about which resource type each one targets beyond the name, and no instruction on when to prefer this over the GET variants. The 'Read the matching GET or the /schema endpoint first' line is the only guidance, and it is about parameter lookup, not tool selection.

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