Get watch history

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

Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's disclosure burden is reduced. However, 'List watched items for a profile' adds no behavioral nuance beyond the annotation, missing pagination-side effects, response shape, or ordering semantics.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the essential verb-resource pair. It is efficient and usually waste-free, but the brevity contains almost nothing beyond the purpose, so it reads as terse rather than richly 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?

With no output schema, the description at least conveys that the tool returns a listing, and the input schema fills in defaults and value ranges. It is not obviously incomplete for the simple read case, but it lacks sibling differentiation and pagination, clarification, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 (33%). The description's 'for a profile' clarifies the implicit profile_id role, but it does not explain page_size, pagination behavior, or defaults. Meaningful parameter context must be inferred from the schema, and even then, page_size has no 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 names a specific resource ('watched items') with a specific verb ('list'), and the title 'Get watch history' reinforces the intent. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like nuvio_get_watch_progress or nuvio_delete_watch_history, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nuvio_get_watch_progress or nuvio_set_watch_progress. With a large sibling list, the agent gets no routing information beyond the product description.

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