get_users_by_id_history_episodes

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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only and idempotent. The description adds a bit of behavioral detail on pagination (default limits, clamping) and date range formatting, but does not disclose response behavior, filtering semantics, or any authentication requirements; mostly it lists parameters.

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 definition is front-loaded with a clear summary and endpoint, and the parameter list is organized. However, it is longer than necessary, with repeated non-descriptive 'Query parameter.' lines and a verbose watchnow block that could be condensed; every line does not earn its place.

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 having an output schema and strong annotation hints, this is a 16-parameter endpoint with no schema-level descriptions. The description is incomplete for correct invocation: most filter parameters have no format or allowed values, and 'extended' is left undefined.

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 carries the parameter documentation burden. It gives real semantics for id ('me' support), watchnow (enumerated values), start_at/end_at (format), and page/limit, but leaves most filters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, runtimes, countries, certifications, start_date, end_date, extended) with no meaning beyond 'Query parameter.'

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 opening 'Get episode watched history' names a clear verb and resource, and the endpoint line pins the exact operation. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related sibling tools like get_users_by_id_history_episodes_by_item_id or get_users_by_id_history_movies, so it stops short of full 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?

No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_users_by_id_history, get_users_by_id_history_episodes_by_item_id, or the movies/shows variants. The description is essentially an argument reference rather than a usage decision aid.

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