Trending TV This Week

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what data format is returned, pagination behavior beyond the page parameter, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'trending' means algorithmically. The description is insufficient for a tool with behavioral implications.

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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the core purpose with zero wasted words. Every element ('Get', 'trending', 'TV shows', 'of the week') contributes essential meaning without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for effective tool use. While the purpose is clear, it doesn't address what data is returned, how 'trending' is determined, whether results are filtered by region/language, or other contextual factors needed for proper invocation. For a tool with potential complexity around trending algorithms and data formats, this is inadequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'page' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'trending TV shows of the week', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'trending_tv_day' by specifying the weekly timeframe, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other trending tools beyond the name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'trending_tv_day', 'trending_all_week', or 'tv_popular'. It doesn't mention use cases, prerequisites, or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between similar trending or TV listing tools.

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