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

The annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds more: summaries and glossary content are suppressed for episodes after the read point, and spoiler markers appear on episode 2 and later. That explains what gets filtered out, which goes beyond the structured fields.

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 compact sentences that front-load the return payload and then explain the filtering branch. Every sentence adds information; no boilerplate or repetition of the name and 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned. Two parameters, one required, annotations present, no nesting — everything an agent needs in order to call the tool correctly is covered.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the schema already documents both parameters, including the spoiler-avoidance meaning of up_to_episode. The description restates the same semantics rather than adding new ones (e.g. how the value is derived), so the baseline of 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 and resource: returns the list of published episodes (number, title, date, summary, URL) plus the work's description and glossary. It is immediately clear what the tool yields, but it does not say how it differs from siblings like get_episode or get_glossary, even though it partly overlaps with the latter.

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 description gives useful conditional guidance — pass up_to_episode to avoid spoilers, omit it to get everything with spoiler markers from episode 2 onward — but that is mostly parameter behaviour. It says nothing about when to pick this tool over get_episode, get_glossary, or list_new_episodes, so the selection decision 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.