get_users_by_id_history_shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: 'me' as a valid id, YYYY-MM-DD date formatting, pagination defaults, and the clamping behavior for limit. These are genuine operational details an agent needs.

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 summary line is front-loaded and the arg list is organized. However, the repeated 'Query parameter' lines waste space and the watchnow explanation is verbose. It is not poorly structured, but it does not make every sentence 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?

Given 16 parameters, no schema-level descriptions, and a large sibling family, the description is incomplete. It covers pagination and date formats well, but leaves most filter parameters undefined and offers no tool-selection context. An agent could call the endpoint with valid schema types yet still pass incorrectly formatted filter values.

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 burden. It provides real meaning for id, watchnow, start_at, end_at, page, and limit. However, nine parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, certifications) are dismissed as 'Query parameter,' adding no semantic value. This is partially compensating but not fully.

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 show watched history,' which clearly states the verb and resource. It identifies the endpoint and the subject (user show history), but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like get_users_by_id_history_shows_by_item_id or get_users_by_id_history.

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 parameter notes explain how to format some values, but the description never states the intended use case, exclusions, or why an agent should choose this over get_users_by_id_history, get_users_by_id_history_movies, or the item-specific variants.

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