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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only 'Get' operation but does not state whether authentication is required, what 'key URIs' refers to, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting necessary details, making it slightly under-specified.

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?

The tool has only 2 params and no output schema, but the sibling list suggests it exists within a nuanced family of episode-related tools. The description doesn't explain the return format, what 'key URIs' includes, or how this differs from sibling tools, leaving the context incomplete.

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%, and the description mentions nothing about the 'guest' or 'x-hapi-auth-state' parameters. It adds zero meaning beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 'Get an episode card (metadata + key URIs)' uses a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical clarifies the content. It distinguishes from siblings like getEpisodesGuestMetadatajson by using 'card' terminology, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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 siblings such as getEpisodesGuestMetadatajson or getEpisodesGuestTranscriptformat. The description gives no context or exclusions, leaving the agent unsure which tool to select.

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