get_shows_by_id_sentiments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint shape and resource identifier, with no extra behavioral context such as aggregation behavior, auth requirements, or response semantics. It does not contradict 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 summary, the exact HTTP endpoint, and a clear argument definition. It has no filler and front-loads the primary purpose.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with annotations and an output schema, the description provides the essential operational details: operation, path, and id semantics. It does not explain what the sentiments data contains, but the output schema can cover the return shape, so the description is sufficiently complete.

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 burden of explaining the id parameter. It states that id is 'The id/slug of the resource', which adds meaning beyond the bare schema title 'Id' and clarifies that slugs are accepted. It could include an example, but for a single parameter this is adequate.

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 opens with 'Get show sentiments' — a specific verb, resource, and data type — reinforced by the endpoint GET /shows/{id}/sentiments. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_movies_by_id_sentiments or other show-data endpoints.

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 implies that this tool is for retrieving sentiment data for a show by its id or slug. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over related endpoints such as get_shows_by_id_ratings or get_shows_by_id_stats.

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