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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it explains the substring sweep for Chinese, the 20-row metadata limit, and the partial: true response flag. This goes beyond standard expectations and gives the agent critical handling instructions.

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 well-structured sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and every clause contributes functional detail, from search fields to return limits and partial-result handling.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description covers the key aspects an agent needs: what is searched, what is returned, the result limit, and how to handle partial results. This is sufficient for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 describes all six parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds only marginal value for 'q' via 'substring sweep'. The extra context on substring handling is useful but does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 opens with 'Full-text search across titles, deks, TL;DRs, digests and transcripts', clearly stating the verb ('search') and the resources. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_episode and list_episodes by specifying it returns metadata rows rather than content.

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 clear operational context, including how to interpret partial results ('say so rather than reporting an absence'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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