get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_watching

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond the endpoint itself. It doesn't mention whether the response includes user profiles, pagination, authentication requirements, or any rate limits. With annotations covering safety, a modest amount of additional context would be expected, but the description is mostly just a rephrasing of the endpoint name.

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 very concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The endpoint and argument list are clearly separated. No unnecessary words. However, the argument descriptions could be more detailed without harming conciseness, so it's not perfect.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool, the output schema exists, and annotations cover safety, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and any behavioral context beyond the endpoint. It would benefit from a note on when to use this over sibling watching endpoints. This is a minor gap for a read-only tool, but it leaves the agent to infer usage.

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 is the only source of parameter meaning. It provides terse descriptions: 'id: The id/slug of the resource' (vague, doesn't specify it's the show's id), 'season: Season number' (clear), and 'extended: Extended information to include in the response' (unhelpful). These are minimal and do not adequately compensate 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 clearly states 'Get users watching right now' with the specific endpoint for a show's season. It identifies the resource (shows) and the action (get watching users), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_shows_by_id_watching or get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_episodes_by_episode_watching, so it's not fully distinguished from alternatives.

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 other watching-related tools. It does not mention the difference between season-level, show-level, or episode-level watching, nor does it suggest when this endpoint is appropriate. This is a significant gap given the many sibling tools with similar names.

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