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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the substantive behavioral detail of the three terminal states and the fact that 'aired' carries an episode_id payload. It stops short of describing timing/refresh behavior, which would be the only remaining gap.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the purpose and then enumerates outcomes and the next step. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return values, including the episode_id attached to 'aired'. The only shortfall is the absence of any guidance on the question_id input, which for a one-parameter lookup tool is a modest gap.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It implies the question_id originates from radio_ask_hosts but never states the identifier's format or where to obtain it, adding only indirect meaning.

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?

States a specific operation (checking status) on a specific resource (a question submitted via radio_ask_hosts), and enumerates the possible outcomes. An agent can distinguish it from radio_ask_hosts and radio_episode_transcript without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly anchors the tool to its producer ('submitted with radio_ask_hosts') and routes the agent onward for the 'aired' case ('read it with radio_episode_transcript'). It gives clear context and a follow-up path, though it does not state when-not to use it.

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