get_shows_by_id_stats

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

Annotations already disclose the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), and the description is consistent with a read-only operation. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide — no mention of auth needs, rate limits, or what 'stats' entail — so it neither enhances nor contradicts the annotation coverage.

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?

Five short lines with no wasted words; the core statement 'Get show stats.' is front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and a single parameter explanation. The brevity is efficient, though the terseness contributes to the ambiguity about what 'stats' means.

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 tool is simple (one param, rich annotations, output schema present), so minimal description is acceptable, and the output schema can communicate return-value shape. However, the description is incomplete on semantics — it never defines what 'stats' contain or how this differs from ratings, sentiment, and progress endpoints, leaving a real gap for an agent deciding between siblings.

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 compensate. It does: 'id: The id/slug of the resource' clarifies that the parameter accepts an id or slug rather than a bare identifier, and the endpoint path indicates it refers to a show. However, the reference to 'the resource' is generic and doesn't elaborate on format or constraints, so compensation is partial.

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 verb and resource ('Get show stats') but 'stats' is undefined, making the purpose vague among many siblings like get_shows_by_id_ratings and get_shows_by_id_sentiments. The HTTP path 'GET /shows/{id}/stats' adds some specificity, but the description largely restates the tool name without clarifying what statistics are returned.

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 on when to use this tool versus its numerous siblings. With tools like get_shows_by_id_ratings, get_shows_by_id_progress_watched, get_shows_by_id_sentiments, and get_shows_by_id_seasons_by_season_stats all nearby, the agent receives no criteria for selecting this endpoint over those alternatives.

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