Найти сериал

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

Annotations already signal a read-only operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: filters must use exact values from catalog://facets, and each result is marked with the user's tracking state. It does not cover edge cases like empty results or pagination, but those are less critical given the read-only annotation and output schema.

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 well-structured with a clear opening summary, bullet-style mode explanations, and concrete examples. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, especially the aside about TVmaze, but each part contributes to the agent's understanding of when and how to invoke the tool.

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?

For a read-only search tool with 10 optional parameters, the description covers the key decision points: which search mode to use, how to handle empty query, where to get exact filter values, and what the results include. Some minor gaps remain around limit, year range, language, and response_format, but the output schema and parameter names reduce the risk of misuse.

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 low (30%), but the tool description compensates well for the central parameters: it explains query modes, empty-query filter browsing, exact facet values for genre/status, and gives a min_rating example. Remaining parameters like limit, year_from/year_to, and response_format are left largely to their names and schema constraints, which are self-explanatory.

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 function: find a series by title, by plot description, or by filters, and it gives concrete examples for each mode. It is specific about the resource and behavior, but it does not explicitly differentiate show_search from its sibling tools like episode_search or show_profile.

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 gives strong practical guidance: when to use a title query, when to use a plot query, when to use filters without query, and where to find exact filter values. It does not mention exclusions or direct alternatives among sibling tools, so it falls just short of a fully explicit routing guide.

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