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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful behavioral context like the 0-10 α-sentiment scale and that assets are included, but it does not disclose error behavior, required permissions, or whether the summary is concise vs. detailed. It is a straightforward read operation, so some leniency applies, but more detail would improve transparency.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and key additional data points. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 without an output schema, the description adequately explains the return content (summary, assets, sentiment). It could be more complete by noting that the output is not a full transcript, but that is implicitly covered by the word 'summary' and the sibling name get_episode_transcript.

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 covers the only parameter (episode_id) with a minimal description 'Episode ID', and schema description coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra meaning to this parameter beyond what is already in the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 gets a 'transcript summary for a specific episode' and adds specifics about included assets and α-sentiment, distinguishing it from siblings like get_episode_transcript or get_episode_details. The verb 'Get' and resource are explicit.

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 context is implied by the term 'transcript summary' and the mention of sentiment, suggesting it is for users needing a condensed summary rather than the full transcript. However, no explicit when-to-use or alternatives are provided, leaving room for ambiguity among the many get_episode_* siblings.

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