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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that this is a read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond scoping to a project; no mention of ordering, pagination, or return format is made.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that fully states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted wording, and the core action and scope are front-loaded.

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 a simple one-parameter list tool with a read-only annotation, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks any note about return values, but since this is a list operation and no output schema exists, the absence is a minor gap rather than a serious omission.

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% and the single parameter project_id is adequately described in the schema. The description's 'in a project' phrase loosely maps to project_id but does not add extra detail beyond the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'List the episodes in a project.' It clearly identifies the operation and resource, and the project scoping helps distinguish it from tools like get_episode or list_projects. However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against sibling tools.

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?

The phrase 'in a project' implies this tool is for retrieving all episodes for a given project_id, and the required parameter reinforces that. There is no explicit guidance about when to use this instead of get_episode, list_episode_segments, or other sibling tools.

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