get_users_by_id_watched_shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about pagination: low default limits, endpoint maximums, and clamping of high values. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand API expectations. It stops short of discussing error cases or authentication, but that is less critical given the read-only nature.

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 structure is clean: a one-line purpose, the endpoint, then a bulleted parameter list. The purpose is front-loaded and the pagination explanation is well-worded. However, the 'Query parameter.' placeholders for extended and season_numbers are redundant filler that could be removed without loss, slightly detracting from conciseness.

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 tool has a clear output schema, safe read-only annotations, and a short parameter list, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It does explain pagination and specials, but the absence of any detail for extended and season_numbers leaves real calling gaps. An agent would likely guess or omit these parameters, which could lead to unexpected responses in cases where they matter.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden for explaining parameters. It does well for id, page, limit, and specials, but 'extended' and 'season_numbers' are dismissively labeled 'Query parameter.'—offering no more information than the schema itself. This leaves the agent without the value ranges or formats needed to correctly invoke those parameters.

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 watched shows,' which clearly identifies the resource and action. The endpoint path and required 'id' parameter make it evident this returns a specific user's watched shows, distinguishing it from movie- or type-based siblings. It could be slightly more explicit about the user scoping, but the name and path carry that meaning.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_users_by_id_watched_by_type or get_users_by_id_watched_movies. The description lacks any mention of use cases, exclusions, or recommended conditions for selection, leaving the agent to infer the tool's scope from its name alone.

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