get_shows_played_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 genuine behavioral context beyond that: pagination clamping behavior ('higher values are clamped rather than rejected') and the varying default limit by endpoint. 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 first line and endpoint are efficient, but the body is a long parameter dump where roughly half the entries ('Query parameter') add no information. Indentation is inconsistent (two-space vs four-space) and the list is not front-loaded by importance.

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?

With an output schema and safety annotations present, the description's job narrows, but for a 17-parameter tool it still omits critical calling information: valid values for the required period parameter, the meaning/format of extended, and the expected syntax of the filter parameters. An agent cannot confidently construct a correct call without external documentation.

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 property descriptions are absent (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly for watchnow (seven documented values) and limit (defaults/maximums/clamping). However, eight parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, certifications) are dismissed as 'Query parameter' with zero added meaning, and the required period parameter gets only 'Path parameter' with no accepted values.

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?

Opens with 'Get the most played shows,' a specific verb+resource pair, reinforced by the GET /shows/played/{period} endpoint. This distinguishes it from sibling period tools (watched/collected/favorited/streaming) by naming the 'played' metric, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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 on when to select this tool over siblings like get_shows_watched_by_period or get_movies_played_by_period. The description jumps straight into the parameter list with no context, preconditions, or exclusions.

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