get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_videos

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

The annotations already disclose a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, and the description does not contradict them. It adds only the 'all videos' scope and the endpoint line, with no extra context about pagination or filtering, but the annotation safety profile makes this acceptable.

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 concise and scannable: a one-line summary, the endpoint template, and an Args list. Some information is redundant with the tool name and path, but there is no filler and the structure is efficient.

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 two-parameter GET with an output schema and read-only annotations, the information given is largely sufficient to construct a correct request. The missing piece is guidance on how this endpoint relates to the many sibling video endpoints, but that is more a usage-guidance issue than a completeness issue for making the call.

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 0% schema coverage, the parameter burden falls on the description, yet it offers only generic notes: 'The id/slug of the resource' and 'Season number'. It does not clarify that id is the show id or provide any constraint details, so the endpoint path is doing most of the disambiguation work.

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 action and resource: 'Get all videos' followed by the endpoint 'GET /shows/{id}/seasons/{season}/videos', which pins down the resource scope. It does not explicitly compare itself with the sibling show-level or episode-level video endpoints, so differentiation is only via the path and 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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this endpoint over related video or list endpoints, and no mention of exclusions or alternatives. The only hint is the REST path itself, so the agent must infer selection from naming conventions.

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