discover_tv_shows

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. While it mentions 'advanced filters' and provides examples, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens when no results match filters. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides concrete examples. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main functionality. It could be slightly more concise by removing 'Perfect for' phrasing, but overall it's well-structured without wasted words.

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 7-parameter discovery tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does and example use cases. However, it doesn't address important contextual aspects like result format, pagination details, error conditions, or how it differs from sibling discovery tools. Given the tool's complexity and lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete operational context.

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 mentions filter categories (genre, language, year, rating, sorting) that align with the 7 parameters in the schema. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by providing example use cases, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema.

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 as 'Discover TV shows with advanced filters' and provides specific examples of criteria, which gives a concrete understanding of its function. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_tv_shows' or 'get_tv_recommendations', which likely offer different discovery mechanisms.

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 implies usage context through examples ('Perfect for finding shows that match specific criteria'), suggesting this tool is for filtered discovery rather than general browsing. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_tv_shows' or 'get_tv_recommendations', leaving some ambiguity about tool selection.

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