get_users_by_id_watching

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which are consistent but not additional behavioral disclosure such as what is returned, whether it reflects live state, or any special response behavior.

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 compact and well-structured, with the endpoint first and arguments clearly listed. There is no fluff, though the opening 'Get watching' is too terse to be maximally informative.

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 safety annotations, the description is incomplete for selection and invocation because it never defines the resource being retrieved or how it differs from the many watching/watchlist siblings. An agent cannot reliably know what 'watching' means or when this endpoint is the right choice.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does explain id well ('slug that identifies the user, or "me" for the authenticated user'), but extended is only restated as 'Extended information to include in the response', which adds little concrete meaning.

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 says 'Get watching' and shows the endpoint GET /users/{id}/watching, but it never explains what 'watching' means as a resource (e.g., media the user is currently watching). It is vague enough that an agent could confuse it with watchlist or watching-history endpoints among the many siblings.

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 related siblings like get_shows_by_id_watching, get_movies_by_id_watching, or get_users_by_id_watchlist_by_type_by_sort_by_by_sort_how. The description only lists arguments, with no context for selection or exclusions.

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