get_tv_details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the return content ('comprehensive details including number of seasons, episodes, networks, creators, and more'), which is helpful. However, it lacks information on potential errors (e.g., invalid ID handling), rate limits, authentication needs, or response format specifics, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by specifics on return details. Every word contributes value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse. There is no wasted text or unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only operation) and lack of output schema, the description provides adequate context for basic use but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't cover error handling, response structure, or integration nuances, making it minimally complete.

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 'tv_id' fully documented in the schema as 'TMDB TV show ID.' The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or validation rules. According to guidelines, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high (>80%) and no param info is added in the description.

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 action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('specific TV show using its TMDB ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_tv_credits' or 'get_tv_recommendations' by focusing on comprehensive show details rather than credits or recommendations. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'search_tv_shows' which might also return TV show information.

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 by mentioning 'specific TV show using its TMDB ID,' suggesting this tool is for known IDs rather than discovery. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_tv_shows' (for unknown IDs) or 'discover_tv_shows' (for browsing). No exclusions or prerequisites are provided, leaving some ambiguity in tool selection.

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