get_episodes_by_id_watchnow_by_country

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the endpoint and resource scope but does not disclose response behavior, pagination, auth needs, or rate limits. This is acceptable given the annotations, but the description itself adds limited behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the endpoint and an Args list. There is minimal fluff, and the structure is easy to scan. The Args list is somewhat redundant with the input schema but useful because the schema lacks descriptions.

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 output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, so the description does not need to explain return values or read-only behavior. However, it leaves optional parameters underspecified and offers no guidance for choosing among sibling watch-now tools. It is adequate for a simple GET but not fully complete.

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 carry parameter meaning. It provides real semantics for id ('Trakt ID of the resource') and country ('2 character country code'), but 'links: Query parameter' and 'extended: Extended information to include in the response' are vague and mostly restate the parameter names. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 action and resource: 'Get episode watch now sources.' It also shows the endpoint pattern GET /episodes/{id}/watchnow/{country}, which makes the scope obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling watch-now tools for movies/shows, so it stops short of a 5.

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 about when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like get_shows_by_id_watchnow_by_country or get_movies_by_id_watchnow_by_country. The endpoint path implies the resource type, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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