Профиль сериала

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description reinforces this with 'Показывает' while adding useful behavioral context: it aggregates episode ratings into season-level trends and includes the current user's position. No contradiction with readOnlyHint/openWorldHint is present. It stops short of revealing potential dependencies, such as whether tracking data is required.

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 definition is brief and front-loaded: the first sentence states exactly what the profile contains. The second sentence adds a differentiating claim, though it is more marketing than invocation-critical; overall it is efficiently structured.

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 simple two-parameter schema, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description sufficiently communicates what the tool returns and why it is special. The only notable gaps are the undocumented response_format modes and lack of explicit routing to sibling tools, which are minor at this complexity.

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 schema already documents the show parameter with an example, and the description's 'рейтинги по сезонам' adds contextual meaning to that parameter. However, the optional response_format parameter is only defined by its enum and default; the description adds no explanation of concise vs. detailed, leaving a real gap at 50% schema coverage.

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 uses 'Показывает' (shows) with a specific resource, the show profile, and enumerates concrete content: facts, per-season ratings, and the user's position in the show. It implicitly separates this from search/sibling tools by claiming this aggregated view is not available in TVmaze clients, but it never names the sibling alternatives.

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?

Usage context is implied: an agent can infer to call this when it needs a show's profile, season ratings, or the user's standing in the show. However, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions and does not mention alternative sibling tools such as show_search or episode_search.

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