get_users_by_id_ratings_shows

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable pagination semantics: default limits of ~10, endpoint maximums ~250, and clamping behavior for high limits. It also clarifies the id parameter accepts a slug or 'me' for the authenticated user, which is useful context beyond the schema.

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 operation, followed by endpoint and an Args list. It is organized and mostly efficient; the limit explanation is a bit long but provides necessary pagination detail. No redundant filler sentences.

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 present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers all four parameters and gives pagination edge cases. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling ratings endpoints, but the 'shows' resource is clear from the name and opening line. Overall sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains id as a slug or 'me', page as a page number, and limit with detailed default/cap/clamp behavior. The extended parameter is only described generically as 'Extended information to include in the response,' which is somewhat vague, preventing a 5.

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?

Description opens with 'Get show ratings,' a specific verb and resource. It clearly indicates this tool retrieves a user's ratings for shows, which distinguishes it from sibling rating tools for movies/episodes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or scope boundaries, so not a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description simply states the operation and parameters, leaving the agent to infer from the tool name and sibling context. There is no mention of when to prefer this over get_users_by_id_ratings or get_users_by_id_ratings_movies.

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