list_shows_anticipated

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination defaults and clamping behavior for the limit parameter, which goes beyond the schema. However, it doesn't describe the response format or any other behavioral traits like sorting or default ordering.

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 core purpose and endpoint, which is good. The watchnow parameter explanation is verbose and could be more concise, and the repeated 'Query parameter' labels for eight parameters add noise without adding value. It's reasonably structured but not tight.

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 16 parameters, no required parameters, and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and pagination behavior but leaves many filter parameters underspecified. The watchnow values are well documented, but the generic 'Query parameter' labels for genres, subgenres, years, ratings, dates, runtimes, countries, and certifications mean an agent would need external knowledge to use them correctly. The output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation, but the filter semantics are incomplete.

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 full burden of explaining parameters. It provides meaningful explanations for extended, watchnow, page, limit, and the ignore_* flags, with detailed value options for watchnow. However, many parameters (genres, subgenres, years, ratings, start_date, end_date, runtimes, countries, certifications) are only labeled 'Query parameter' with no format or value guidance, leaving significant gaps.

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 the most anticipated shows' and includes the endpoint path 'GET /shows/anticipated', which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_movies_anticipated and list_media_anticipated by specifying 'shows', though it doesn't explicitly name those 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?

The description implies usage through the endpoint path and the list of filter parameters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_shows_popular, list_shows_trending, or list_shows_hot. The watchnow parameter has detailed value guidance, which helps with one specific usage aspect, but overall the when-to-use context is only implied.

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