get_myshows_recomendations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool retrieves recommendations and returns a dictionary, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, freshness of data, or whether it's a read-only operation. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 concise with two brief sentences, though the colon before 'return' is a minor formatting issue. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, but could be more structured by explicitly separating purpose from return value.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and multiple sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return format beyond 'dictionary', or how this tool differs from others, making it insufficient for an agent to use effectively without additional 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one undocumented parameter 'self'. The description provides no information about this parameter's purpose, format, or semantics (e.g., whether it's a user ID, authentication token, or something else). The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 states the tool 'retrieves recommendations from MyShows', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_shows' or 'get_myshows_profile_shows_list', leaving ambiguity about what specific type of recommendations are provided (personalized vs general, TV vs movies).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'search_shows', 'get_calendar_episodes', and 'get_myshows_profile_shows_list', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for personalized recommendations, trending content, or another context, leaving the agent to guess.

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