Search TV shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and idempotent, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: matching is fuzzy and the return payload is identifiers intended for chaining into get_tv_show_details. Pagination/result-count behavior is left to the 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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the matching behavior and the chaining purpose front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter search with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two things the structured data can't convey: fuzzy matching and the downstream use of returned ids. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, documenting query, page and firstAirYear, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates the 'by name' semantics of the query parameter and adds nothing about page or firstAirYear filtering.

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?

States a specific verb (find/search) plus resource (TV series) and adds the matching semantics ('by name (fuzzy)'). The resource name itself separates it from search_movies/search_people, though no explicit sibling contrast is drawn.

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?

'Returns ids to use with get_tv_show_details and other tools' establishes the workflow context: use this to resolve a name into an id before fetching details. It gives clear positive usage but no explicit when-not or alternative-search guidance.

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