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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It reveals output details (speaker, α-sentiment score scale 0-10, associated ticker) and implies read-only behavior via 'Get'. While it doesn't mention edge cases like missing episodes or pagination, the provided specifics go beyond a bare statement.

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 a single clear sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (speaker, sentiment, ticker). It lacks potential failure modes or pagination info, but for a straightforward getter, this is sufficient. The presence of many sibling tools distinguishes its role.

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 schema description covers 100% of the parameter (episode_id described as 'Episode ID'). The description confirms the need for a specific episode but adds no additional format, constraints, or examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 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 the tool's function: retrieving all quotes from a specific episode, with speaker, sentiment score, and ticker. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_episode_transcript, get_episode_details, and get_episode_summary by specifying it returns quotes.

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 implied: you use this tool when you need quotes from a specific episode. However, there is no explicit comparison to alternatives like transcript or details, nor guidance on when not to use this tool. The description lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives.

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