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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool does not fetch anything (no side effects), that the generated URLs are for download, and that using one yields a complete transcript in one request. It stops short of detailing URL format, authentication, or expiration, but for a URL-builder tool, the core behavioral traits are clearly conveyed.

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, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every clause earns its place: the no-fetch note, the use-case contrast with bidclub_get_episode, and the required-parameter condition. No redundancy or filler.

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 3 simple parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and the key constraint. It could have specified the output format (e.g., 'returns a JSON object of URLs'), but the absence is not critical since the purpose is clear.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the mutual exclusivity of slug and show ('Exactly one... required') and linking each to 'episode' vs 'whole show', which the schema does not explicitly state. This extra semantics raises the score.

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 action ('Build the download URLs'), the resource ('an episode or a whole show'), and the key property ('without fetching anything'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by contrasting with bidclub_get_episode, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: hand the URLs to the user, or fetch one to get a complete transcript in a single request instead of paging through bidclub_get_episode. It also states the required condition ('Exactly one of slug or show is required'), giving clear direction on when to use this tool.

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