search_shows

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 mentions pagination ('page number to retrieve') and return format ('dictionary containing the search results'), but lacks critical details like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or whether results are cached. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter and return explanations are concise, though the use of Python-style ':param' and ':return' markers is slightly verbose. Overall, it avoids unnecessary fluff and communicates key points efficiently.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks depth in behavioral traits, usage context, and output details. Without annotations or output schema, more elaboration on results structure or error cases would improve completeness.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for all three parameters: 'query' as a search string, 'year' as an optional filter, and 'page' for pagination with a default. However, it doesn't explain parameter constraints (e.g., query length, year range, page limits) or interactions (e.g., how year affects results), leaving gaps in understanding.

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: 'Searches for TV shows/movies on MyShows by a query and optional year.' It specifies the verb ('Searches'), resource ('TV shows/movies'), and platform ('MyShows'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_movie_show_by_id' or 'get_myshows_recomendations', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_movie_show_by_id' for specific IDs or 'get_myshows_recomendations' for recommendations, nor does it specify use cases like fuzzy matching versus exact lookups. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear selection criteria.

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