get_shows_by_id_progress_watched

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds some request-option context via parameters like hidden, specials, and count_specials, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what the annotations and parameter semantics already convey.

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 well organized: a one-sentence summary, the endpoint, and a scannable Args list. Every line earns its place with no filler.

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 combination of endpoint, parameter definitions, output schema, and safety annotations covers everything needed to invoke the tool. It lacks examples or notes on default behaviors for options like include_stats, but those are minor for a simple read tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full parameter-semantics burden. It provides meaningful one-line meanings for all six parameters, including the count_specials caveat ('only applies if specials are included'). 'extended' remains vague, but the description compensates well overall.

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 verb and resource: 'Get show watched progress' for GET /shows/{id}/progress/watched. It doesn't explicitly call out siblings like get_shows_by_id_progress_collection or list_sync_progress_watched, but the endpoint path and wording are specific enough to disambiguate.

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 select this tool rather than related tools such as list_sync_progress_watched or create_shows_by_id_progress_watched_reset. The description simply states what it does and defines parameters, leaving the decision to the agent.

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