get_shows_by_id_last_episode

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the HTTP endpoint path, which is informative but not behavioral beyond what annotations convey. It does not describe pagination, response structure, or any additional side effects, but given the annotations and output schema, the bar is lower. No contradiction exists.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded. The purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by the endpoint and argument definitions. There is no redundancy or extraneous content. Every line contributes to the tool's usability.

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 existence of an output schema, return values need not be described. The tool is simple with two parameters and one required. The description covers the essential information: what it does and what parameters are needed. A minor gap is that 'extended' is not elaborated, and the meaning of 'last episode' (e.g., most recent by air date) is implied but not explicit. Overall, it is sufficient 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 provides brief explanations for both parameters: id is 'The id/slug of the resource' and extended is 'Extended information to include in the response.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. While 'extended' is vague, it at least indicates its purpose, so the description adds value.

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 'Get last episode.' which is a clear verb and resource. It is specific about the action and the resource (show's last episode). It is distinguishable from siblings by name, but the description itself does not explicitly differentiate from the similar get_shows_by_id_next_episode. The endpoint path is also given, reinforcing the purpose.

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. It does not mention the relationship to get_shows_by_id_next_episode or other show-related endpoints. An agent has no explicit context to decide between this and sibling tools. The name implies the purpose, but no usage context is provided.

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