get_shows_by_id_studios

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint path and the fact that the id can be an id or slug, which is useful. It does not describe response shape or pagination, but the output schema exists and annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint path and Args section are useful and not redundant with the schema. It earns its place, though the 'Args' formatting is slightly redundant with the input schema.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is mostly adequate. The main gap is that it doesn't clarify what a 'studio' is or how this relates to the show resource, which could cause an agent to confuse it with other show sub-resources.

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 state that id is 'The id/slug of the resource,' which adds the slug alternative beyond the schema's bare 'Id' title. However, it doesn't clarify what resource type the id refers to (show id vs. studio id) or provide examples.

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 says 'Get show studios' and includes the endpoint path, which clearly identifies the resource and operation. However, it doesn't explain what 'studios' means in this context (e.g., production companies associated with a show) or distinguish it from the many sibling get_shows_by_id_* tools beyond the name itself.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_shows_by_id, get_shows_by_id_people, or get_movies_by_id_studios. The endpoint path implies it takes a show id, but there is no explicit context about use cases or exclusions.

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