get_calendars_releases_hot_by_start_date_by_days

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: detailed watchnow value semantics, the type narrowing behavior, and episode grouping collapse options. It does not mention pagination or rate limits, but the annotation coverage makes the added context sufficient for a read-only feed.

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 front-loaded with the one-line purpose and endpoint, and the Args block is reasonably organized. However, it repeats schema parameter names and pads with uninformative 'Query parameter' lines for nine parameters. There are also formatting inconsistencies (e.g., the missing 'for' in 'subscriptions_all streaming'), making it longer and less polished than ideal.

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?

This is a complex 15-parameter tool with no schema-level descriptions, and the definition leaves many filter parameters semantically empty. The required start_date and days are clear, and watchnow/type/group are well described, but the bulk of optional filters lack format, allowed values, or examples. The output schema covers return shape, but the input semantics are not complete enough for confident 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining parameters. It does explain start_date format, days, watchnow values, type, and group well. However, nine parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date_query, end_date, runtimes, countries, certifications) are only given the placeholder 'Query parameter' with no value format or semantics, leaving a significant gap for an agent trying to use them 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 opens with a clear imperative 'Get hot releases' and includes the endpoint, identifying the specific resource and operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling hot-calendar variants (e.g., hot_finales, hot_new, hot_premieres), so the agent must rely on the tool name for differentiation.

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 alternatives such as get_calendars_releases_hot_finales_by_start_date_by_days or get_calendars_by_target_movies_by_start_date_by_days. The description provides parameter details but no exclusions, conditions, or comparison to sibling tools, leaving the selection decision unsupported.

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