get_shows_watched_by_period

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining pagination behavior (default limit often 10, clamped to 250) and detailing the watchnow filter options. It does not mention auth requirements or return data shape, but with annotations and an output schema those gaps are less severe.

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 reasonably lean; it opens with the one-sentence purpose and then lists the endpoint and parameters. The watchnow section is verbose but informative. No redundant fluff is present. It could be more compact by trimming generic labels, but overall it is well organized.

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?

The required parameter `period` is not given any valid values or format, which is a critical omission—an agent cannot call the tool correctly without that information. Many other filter parameters lack formats or examples. While an output schema exists, the description still does not explain the meaning of date ranges, string encoding, or extended info options, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool with 17 parameters.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining 17 parameters. It provides detail for watchnow (with enumerated values) and limit (default/clamping), but most other parameters are merely restated as 'Query parameter' with no format, allowed values, or examples. For instance, 'period' is merely labeled

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 specific verb and resource: 'Get the most watched shows' with the endpoint GET /shows/watched/{period}. This is clear and immediately says what it returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_shows_played_by_period or get_movies_watched_by_period; it relies on the tool name and path for 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 when-to-use guidance, no comparison with siblings, and no mention of prerequisites. For instance, it does not say that this is for aggregated global watched stats versus a user's own watched history. The description simply lists parameters and does not explain which scenario this tool is the right choice for.

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