Top Rated TV Shows

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. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't cover rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (hinted by the 'page' parameter but not explained), or what the return format looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose. It's front-loaded but lacks depth, so it earns a 4 for brevity but not full clarity.

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 complexity of a data-fetching tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple siblings, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, how 'top rated' is determined, or usage context. For a tool in a rich ecosystem, more information is needed to ensure the agent can use it correctly.

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 100%, with the single parameter 'page' documented as 'Page number (1-1000)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't mention pagination or how results are structured. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 'Get top rated TV shows' clearly states the action (get) and resource (top rated TV shows), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'tv_popular' or 'movie_top_rated'. It specifies the resource type (TV shows vs movies) but lacks detail about what 'top rated' means (e.g., by ratings, votes, or time period).

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. With siblings like 'tv_popular', 'tv_airing_today', and 'movie_top_rated', the description doesn't explain when 'top rated' is preferred (e.g., for critically acclaimed shows vs trending ones) or any prerequisites. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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