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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral substance: the output is bounded to metadata plus up to 5 passages of ~120 words in order, and it explicitly never returns a full transcript. This sets accurate expectations beyond the safety hints.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The return payload is front-loaded, followed immediately by the negative scoping constraint and its alternative.

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 must describe returns — and it does so precisely (field list, passage count and length, ordering). An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the response.

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%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: the single 'episode' parameter accepts a number as a string (e.g. "10") or the literal keyword "special". That is a meaningful semantic addition, though it does not specify behavior for invalid numbers or out-of-range episodes.

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 verb+resource ('One Built for MENA episode') and enumerates the returned fields (title, guest, company, date, length, link, key passages). It is clearly distinguishable from list_episodes (plural enumeration) and search_podcast (quote search).

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 steers the agent away from using this for transcripts and names the alternative: 'Never the full transcript: use search_podcast to find specific quotes.' It does not explicitly address when to use list_episodes instead, but the context is clear.

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