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 genuine behavioral value beyond that: the return format (markdown, speaker-labelled), the no-argument behavior (newest episode plus ids 'still on the wheel', implying limited retention), and its relationship to radio_ask_hosts output.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the conditional and the routing note. The 'listens to the show' phrasing is slightly colorful but earns its place by clarifying the tool's role.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does (format, speaker labels, fallback payload with episode ids). Adequate for a two-parameter read tool, with only the station enum left unexplained.

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 50%: episode_id is already documented in the schema, and the description largely restates that omission yields the latest episode (though it adds the returned id list). The station parameter and its 'lv'/'en' enum values are explained in neither the schema nor the description, so meaning is incomplete.

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 resource (episode transcript) and its format (markdown, speaker-labelled), and explicitly positions itself against the sibling radio_ask_hosts as the place where that tool's answers surface. An agent can distinguish it from radio_ask_hosts/radio_now_playing 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?

Gives a clear conditional: omit episode_id to get the newest episode plus the remaining episode ids, and frames the tool as how the agent 'listens' to the show. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use this' statement, but the sibling cross-reference supplies real routing context.

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