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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It usefully notes that pagination cursor applies only to metadata search and mentions per-hit URIs, but omits auth expectations, error behavior, and mode-specific result differences.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a useful pagination note and a concrete example. It is somewhat lengthy but each part adds value, with no wasted sentences.

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 is complex (11 parameters, no output schema, multiple modes). The description covers the main idea and a pagination caveat, but doesn't explain different modes' return shapes, the difference between limit and top_k, or full response structure.

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 only 9%, so the description must compensate. It explains q, mode, guest, keywords, and top_k via the example, but leaves many parameters like limit, title, namespace, episode_slug, and x-hapi-auth-state unexplained.

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 searches episodes and transcripts across metadata and transcript text, distinguishing it from sibling tools like getEpisodes. It also specifies the return format as resources with per-hit URIs.

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 conveys when to use the tool: for searching across episode metadata or transcript text. It provides a concrete example with filters, but doesn't explicitly contrast it with postSearch or the getEpisodes family.

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