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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the output includes both profile and audiobooks, though it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination or ordering.

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, concise and front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, the second provides helpful context without 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?

Given the tool has a single parameter with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an existing output schema (so return values need not be detailed), the description is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke the tool. The additional context about Czech listeners adds relevance.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for the 'slug' parameter with a clear example and discovery method. The description does not add any new parameter-level meaning, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 it returns 'Narrator profile + audiobooks they have read', which is a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_author (author profile) and get_audiobook (individual book), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage through the Czech listener context, suggesting it's useful when exploring narrators. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_audiobook or search tools, and does not state when not to use it.

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