get_shows_by_id_progress_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds a small amount of behavioral context, such as count_specials only applying when specials are included, but does not disclose broader behavior like response shape or how hidden/specials interact with stats beyond the parameter list.

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, front-loaded with a one-line summary, followed by the endpoint and a clean parameter list. Each sentence is purposeful and there is no redundant prose.

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?

For a read-only, idempotent tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource, endpoint, and all parameter meanings. The main gaps are lack of usage guidance and unspecified allowed values for extended, but the output schema handles return-value details.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It does explain all six parameters with meaningful phrases, including clarifying that id is the id/slug and that count_specials only applies if specials are included. The extended parameter remains vague ('Extended information to include'), but overall the description compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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: 'Get show collection progress.' It also includes the endpoint, which clarifies the exact operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the similar sibling get_shows_by_id_progress_watched, so it lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_shows_by_id_progress_watched or list_sync_progress_up_next. It simply states the operation and lists parameters, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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