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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies that the output includes a transcript summary, assets, and sentiment scale, which helps set expectations. However, it does not mention error handling, authentication, or any side effects, though as a GET-like read operation the need for such disclosure is lower.

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 conveys the action, target resource, and key output details without any wasted words. It earns its place by including the sentiment scale, which is essential for understanding the tool's unique value.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is complete enough. It tells the agent exactly what the tool returns and the scale for sentiment, covering all essential aspects. No additional behavioral or return information is needed for the tool to be used 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?

The schema already covers the sole parameter episode_id with 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal new meaning. It merely restates the concept of 'a specific episode' in the description, which does not enhance the parameter's semantics. The baseline of 3 is appropriate given the 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'transcript summary for a specific episode', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_episode_transcript or get_episode_details. It also specifies the unique output (assets and α-sentiment on a 0-10 scale), leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 for obtaining a concise summary with sentiment, but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives such as get_episode_full or get_episode_quotes. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, though the summary-oriented wording serves as a subtle hint.

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