get_shows_by_id_watchnow_by_country

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 agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds the GET endpoint path, which is a useful behavioral detail not in the annotations. However, it doesn't disclose what the response contains (e.g., streaming providers) or any rate limits, but with annotations covering the safety profile, this is 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 front-loaded with the one-liner purpose, followed by the endpoint path. The Args block is redundant with the schema and adds little value, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on the meaning of 'links' and 'extended' parameters, and doesn't mention how this differs from the JustWatch-specific sibling tool, which could lead to incorrect selection.

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%, and the description only repeats the parameter names ('id', 'country', 'links', 'extended') without adding meaning. It does not explain what 'links' as a query parameter does or what 'extended' information might be included. Since the schema gives only types and titles, the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 purpose ('Get show watch now sources') and specifies the resource (show) and operation (retrieve watch now data for a country). It is reasonably specific, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from closely related siblings like 'get_shows_by_id_watchnow_justwatch_links_by_country' or the movie counterpart, but the name and description provide sufficient clarity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that for JustWatch links one should use the sibling tool 'get_shows_by_id_watchnow_justwatch_links_by_country', nor does it describe any prerequisites (e.g., requiring authentication or country code validation). The usage context is implied by the tool name and description, but not clearly stated.

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