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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it is long-running ('takes a few minutes') and therefore requires polling, it has a side effect beyond generation ('it also lifts the automatic pause'), and it incurs real monetary cost. These are exactly the traits annotations cannot express.

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 the action and its default, then duration, then the cost/side-effect caveat. Every clause carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

For an async, cost-incurring mutation with no output schema and one optional param, the description supplies everything an agent needs: how long it takes, how to retrieve the result, the hidden side effect on the pause state, and the cost constraint.

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 the single parameter's description ('Omit for the latest') already documents the optional semantics; the description's 'the latest by default' largely restates it. One optional parameter also places this at the default 4 baseline conceptually, but since the description adds no format or ID-syntax guidance beyond the schema, a 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Make (or remake) the podcast episode of a briefing') plus the default scope ('the latest by default'). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-side sibling get_podcast_episode, which the description explicitly names as the polling counterpart.

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 explicit when ('only when asked'), when-not (implied by the cost warning, 'costs real AI money'), and the alternative workflow ('poll with get_podcast_episode'). Nothing about selection is left to inference.

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