list_recommendations_shows

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

Annotations already establish that the operation is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds some operational context, such as the endpoint path and the meaning of the watchnow parameter values, but it does not mention authentication needs, pagination behavior, default limits, or the fact that these are likely personalized recommendations based on user activity.

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 structured as an endpoint line followed by an argument list, making it scannable. However, the repeated 'Query parameter.' boilerplate is noise, and the watchnow explanation is verbose though useful. It is acceptable but not tightly written.

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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough to ensure correct calls. It lacks expected formats for filters like years, genres, ratings, and dates, does not explain what extended can contain, and does not clarify how this endpoint differs from social or popular/trending list endpoints. The output schema reduces the need to document return values, but the input side is still under-specified.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the full semantic burden, but it only provides meaningful detail for a few parameters. Nine parameters are described as merely 'Query parameter,' which adds no real value beyond their names, and even extended is left vague. Only watchnow receives sufficiently specific guidance about allowed values.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get show recommendations' with the endpoint GET /recommendations/shows/. It is clear this is about show recommendations, but it does not distinguish itself from the sibling list_social_recommendations_shows, which also targets show recommendations.

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?

The description implies the tool is for fetching show recommendations, so an agent can infer a basic use case. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives like list_recommendations_movies or list_social_recommendations_shows, and no conditions are provided for when not to use it.

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