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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing result heterogeneity: results may include shows not yet on OndaCast from a public directory, which explains surprising or inconsistent names — a non-obvious trait an agent must know before trusting results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then return size, then the non-obvious fallback. No filler and nothing repeated from the title.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes the shape (up to `limit` shows with an OndaCast page link). Combined with the fallback disclosure and the pointer to add_podcast, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema with defaults, bounds and maxLength. The description only restates that language is optional and that results are capped at `limit`, adding no syntax, format or value guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search), a specific resource (podcasts), and the scope (the OndaCast catalogue, by title or topic). The medium noun 'podcasts' alone separates it from search_audiobooks and search_stations, so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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?

Clearly signals context: search here for catalogue shows, with an optional language filter, and explicitly routes to add_podcast when a show appears from the public directory but isn't in OndaCast yet. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for audiobooks/stations' exclusion, but the resource noun makes that near-unambiguous.

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