get_shows_collected_by_period

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 meaningful behavioral context: pagination clamping behavior, default limits, and a detailed breakdown of watchnow values. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded with a concise purpose statement, followed by a parameter list. The list is long but necessary given 17 parameters; the watchnow explanation is somewhat verbose and unformatted but remains readable. No fluff.

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 17-parameter endpoint, the description leaves critical gaps: valid period values, accepted formats for filter parameters (genres, years, ratings, etc.), and possible values for 'extended' are absent. An agent could not reliably construct a correct request without external knowledge. Output schema exists but does not aid request construction.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It lists all 17 parameters and gives clear semantics for watchnow, limit, and the ignore_* flags, but most parameters are only labeled 'Query parameter' without explaining format or allowed values (e.g., genres, years, period). Partial compensation only.

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 the most collected shows,' a specific verb+resource that clearly states the action and output. The endpoint path 'GET /shows/collected/{period}' further clarifies the resource and distinguishes it from sibling period-based endpoints for favorited, played, and watched shows.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_shows_favorited_by_period or get_movies_collected_by_period. The intended usage is only implied by the name and one-line summary; no exclusions or alternative routing are mentioned.

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