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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds real behavioral value by specifying that link addresses are kept intact and that guests/sponsors are AI-derived rather than authoritative. It does not cover failure behavior for bad ids, but the additions exceed what the annotations provide.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the 'One episode in full' scope claim followed by the payload breakdown. No filler, though the parenthetical list is long enough that it pushes toward a run-on.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on return-shape disclosure and does so adequately by naming the three payload components. Gaps remain around error behavior and the possibility of missing/unavailable show notes for a given episode.

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% and the single parameter is already documented as a Grep.FM episode id sourced from search_episodes or get_podcast. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so this is the baseline-3 case where the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource and enumerates exactly what 'in full' means: show notes text with link addresses preserved, AI-extracted guests and sponsors, and links. That enumeration distinguishes it in substance from a list-level search or podcast-level fetch, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — you fetch a single episode by id, and the id origin (search_episodes or get_podcast) is stated only in the schema, not the description. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_episodes when...' routing or statement of what happens with an unknown id.

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