get_shows_by_id_related

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds non-obvious runtime details: pagination defaults to a low limit when omitted (often 10), and higher limits are clamped to an endpoint maximum (often 250) rather than rejected. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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-structured: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, and an args list. The pagination caveat adds some length but provides genuinely useful behavior that would otherwise be unknown.

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 and rich annotations reduce the need for return-value and safety explanations. However, the description still lacks clarity on what 'related shows' means and what values 'extended' accepts, which could lead to suboptimal or incorrect use of the optional parameter.

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 full burden. It explains all four parameters, with notably detailed pagination semantics for page and limit. However, 'extended' is only described as 'Extended information to include in the response' without specifying accepted values or format, leaving a key optional parameter under-specified.

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 the operation ('Get related shows') and the exact endpoint path, making the target resource clear. However, it does not distinguish this from the many other get_shows_by_id_* siblings or clarify what 'related' means beyond the name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recommendations, stats, or other show detail endpoints. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions, so the agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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