create_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_report

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Report a season.' It does not disclose what the report does, side effects, or requirements. The instruction to read GET/schema is a parameter hint, not a behavioral disclosure. No contradiction with annotations.

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 succinct and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the endpoint and parameter explanations. Each part earns its place with no redundant content. It could be slightly more explanatory without much cost, but it is appropriately sized for a tool with a simple operation.

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?

The tool has an output schema and three required parameters; the description provides enough to call it, including guidance on obtaining body fields. However, it lacks guidance on when to use this specific report tool over siblings like create_seasons_by_id_report, leaving a potential selection ambiguity. The description is adequate but not complete in terms of tool selection context.

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 explains each parameter: id (the id/slug of the resource), season (season number), and body (request payload, with a pointer to the GET or /schema endpoint for field details). This adds meaningful meaning beyond the bare schema labels, though it does not enumerate expected body fields.

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 ('Report a season'), which is clear and distinct from tools targeting other resources. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool create_seasons_by_id_report, which also reports a season but via a different endpoint. The resource is clearly a season within a show context, but this is implied only by the path, not stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_seasons_by_id_report or other report tools. The only guidance is to read the matching GET or /schema endpoint for the body fields, which addresses parameter usage rather than tool selection. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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