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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds real behavioral substance on top: the full status state machine, the fact that clip fields only appear once ready, and the fallback listing behavior. It stops short of stating pagination limits or how stale the status may be.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the trigger and the return shape, then fallback and exclusion. The enumeration of clip fields is somewhat list-heavy but each item is load-bearing for deciding whether the tool answers the user's question. No filler or restatement of 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be fully restated, and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description still covers triggers, exclusion, fallback behavior and the status vocabulary, leaving nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly.

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% for the single optional episode_id, so the baseline is already 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting it ('With no episode_id it lists recent episodes'), which is behavior the parameter definition alone does not convey.

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 ('get an episode') plus the exact artifact returned: one pipeline status from a closed set of six states, and the clip metadata once ready. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the siblings that could be confused with it, naming transcribe_audio as out of scope and pointing at get_job/transcription_status-adjacent behavior.

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?

Opens with the trigger conditions ('when the user asks how an episode is going, whether it is ready, or what clips were found'), supplies an exclusion ('Do not use for transcripts made with transcribe_audio'), and explains the no-argument fallback. It also tells the agent to prefer this live read over estimating timing, which is actionable routing guidance.

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