get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_ratings

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a small behavioral note about the extended parameter ('use all to include ratings from supported external sources'), but it does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other runtime behavior. No contradiction with 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: a one-line purpose, the exact endpoint, and an args list. Every element earns its place, with no filler. The endpoint line is redundant with the tool name but serves as a precise reference for the agent.

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 simple read-only GET with three parameters, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It documents the endpoint and every parameter. The main gap is the lack of sibling differentiation and usage context, which is a minor omission given the self-explanatory name and path.

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 explanations for all three parameters: id as 'id/slug of the resource', season as 'season number', and extended with the 'all' behavior. This adds value beyond bare names/types, though the id and season descriptions are terse and could be more explicit about the show context.

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 clearly states 'Get season ratings' and includes the exact HTTP path, making the resource unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling rating endpoints like show-level or episode-level ratings; the distinction relies on the path/name rather than stated purpose 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_shows_by_id_ratings or get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_episodes_by_episode_ratings. The description simply restates the operation and parameters, so the agent must infer usage context from the tool name and endpoint path.

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