TV Credits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or the format/structure of the returned cast and crew data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 and front-loaded with a single, direct sentence: 'Get TV show cast and crew by ID'. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, with no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an AI agent.

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. It doesn't explain what 'cast and crew' data includes (e.g., roles, departments), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a data retrieval tool with no structured output guidance, this leaves too many unknowns for the agent.

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 description adds minimal semantic value beyond the input schema. It mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'tv_id' parameter in the schema, but the schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description ('TMDB TV show ID'). No additional details (e.g., ID source, validation rules) are provided, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating further.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get TV show cast and crew by ID'. It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('TV show cast and crew'), and key input ('by ID'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'tv_details' or 'person_tv_credits', which might also provide cast/crew information, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a TMDB ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'tv_details' (which might include credits) or 'person_tv_credits' (which focuses on a person's TV roles). This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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