list_sync_progress_watched

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination clamping behavior, the lifetime_stats reset semantics, and the only_rewatching filter tied to progress.reset_at. This gives the agent meaningful expectations about how the tool behaves.

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 organized as a clear endpoint plus argument list, and the front-loading is good. However, several lines add little value ('hide_completed: Query parameter.') and sort_by/sort_how are nearly tautological, so not every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and all parameters listed, the description is mostly usable for invocation. Still, it omits usage context versus sibling progress/collection tools, does not specify acceptable values for extended/sort_by/sort_how, and leaves the exact meaning of 'watched progress' implicit. This is adequate but not complete.

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 the parameter burden. It covers all 9 parameters and gives substantive context for limit, lifetime_stats, and only_rewatching. However, hide_completed and hide_not_completed are dismissed as 'Query parameter,' and extended/sort_by are described generically, leaving some semantic 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Get watched progress' with the endpoint GET /sync/progress/watched. This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does little to differentiate it from related progress tools like list_sync_progress_up_next or get_shows_by_id_progress_watched.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for listing the current user's watched progress, nor does it distinguish itself from siblings such as list_sync_progress_up_next or get_sync_watched_by_type. The agent must infer usage from the name and endpoint.

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