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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope that annotations cannot convey: airtimes are limited to the next 24 hours and are based on today's schedule, and the support link is only present 'when there is one.' It does not cover behavior when a name matches multiple shows.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and then the lookup keys, followed by a compact colon-list of return values. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nearly every clause carries information; only the parenthetical '(from the other tools)' is vague 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so concretely (titles, web page, support link, station and airtime window). Given only two optional params and full annotation coverage, the remaining gap — ambiguity or not-found behavior under loose name matching — is minor.

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 coverage is 100% and both params are documented with examples, so the baseline would be 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: with zero required parameters, it clarifies that the two params are alternative lookup modes (episodeId vs. show name) rather than something to combine, and reiterates the loose name matching.

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 a specific verb+resource: details for one episode by episodeId or for a show by name, and then enumerates the returned fields (titles, episode web page, support link, station and airtime). It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing to episodeIds coming 'from the other tools,' though it does not name whats_on/whats_next/find_on_now in the prose (only the schema does).

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 makes the two invocation modes explicit — pass an episodeId obtained from the other tools, or pass a show name — which tells the agent this is a follow-up lookup rather than a discovery tool. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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