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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral depth by explaining the meaning of 'live' and 'awaiting' states and the ordering ('newest-first'). This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover all potential behaviors like pagination.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value (ordering, state meanings, filter usage). No filler or 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 a read-only list tool, the description covers purpose, state semantics, and a practical use case. It omits response format or pagination details, but the schema's limit parameter and annotation hints mitigate this. Complete enough for basic usage.

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 50%, and the description significantly enhances the 'status' parameter by explaining its values and filter use case. It doesn't add detail for limit or token, but the schema already provides constraints for limit and descriptions for token/tenant_slug.

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 clearly states the action ('List a publisher's episodes') with a specific scope ('newest-first') and distinguishes the tool by explaining the 'real state' concept with specific values. This differentiates it from sibling publisher tools like upload/attach/stats.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'Filter with status=live or status=awaiting to answer what is still pending?' This offers clear context for when to use the tool, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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