list_social_recommendations_shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the GET endpoint, which is consistent but does not disclose additional behavioral context such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'extended' entails. This is minimal value beyond the annotations.

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: a clear one-line purpose, the endpoint, then a tidy parameter list. There is no filler or redundancy, and each line earns its place.

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 description plus annotations give a minimum viable picture: a read-only list operation, all parameters explained, and an output schema present. However, it lacks context about how 'social' recommendations differ from regular recommendations and provides no routing guidance among similar sibling tools, leaving a notable gap for an agent deciding between them.

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 burden of explaining parameters. It defines all six parameters with meaningful one-line descriptions, including that watch_window is in days and what each ignore flag filters. Some definitions remain vague ('extended'), but overall it compensates well for the empty schema.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('social show recommendations'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it does not explain what 'social' means or how this differs from sibling tools like list_recommendations_shows or list_social_recommendations_movies, so it relies partly on the tool name for differentiation.

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 such as list_recommendations_shows or list_social_recommendations_movies. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints about the intended use case.

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