get_shows_streaming_by_period

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

The annotations already establish the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description is consistent with that. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: detailed pagination clamping behavior, default limits, and the full set of watchnow values with their meanings. This is meaningful transparency information an agent could not derive from the schema alone.

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 the purpose and endpoint, and the parameter list is organized logically. However, repeated 'Query parameter' lines add little value, the watchnow block has inconsistent indentation and a grammar issue ('subscriptions_all' streaming), and the overall text is longer than necessary for the information it conveys.

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?

Despite the output schema and annotations, the description leaves critical gaps for a 17-parameter endpoint: it does not define what 'period' means, what result set is returned, how filters like genres/ratings/date ranges should be formatted, or how watchnow interacts with countries and period. Given the large sibling set of period-based show endpoints, an agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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?

The description adds real semantic value for some parameters, especially watchnow (all seven allowed values explained) and limit (defaults, maximums, clamping behavior). However, with 0% schema description coverage, many parameters are only labeled 'Query parameter' with no syntax or format guidance, and period is only called 'Path parameter' without valid values. The compensation is partial at best.

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 begins with 'Get streaming shows' and includes the full endpoint path GET /shows/streaming/{period}, so the specific resource and action are identifiable. It does not, however, explain what 'streaming' means in this context or how it differs from sibling period-based endpoints like get_shows_watched_by_period or get_shows_played_by_period, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools such as get_movies_streaming_by_period or other get_shows_*_by_period endpoints. An agent is left to infer intent entirely from the name and endpoint path.

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