Energy Podcast Digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context about return data (markdown + metadata, export URLs) and the region fallback behavior, though it doesn't discuss rate limits or auth needs.

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 fairly dense but well-structured: front-loaded with purpose, then slug, then export, then region. Slightly long but each sentence adds 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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values, but it still mentions key fields (export_html_url, export_pdf_url, regions). It covers parameter usage and fallback logic adequately for calling the tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds crucial details: slug is YYYY-MM-DD from list_digests, omitting returns latest, region is the regional pilot with fallback logic, and mentions the payload's 'regions' field. This goes beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'Full briefing markdown + metadata for one edition'. This clearly distinguishes it from the list/search siblings.

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?

It explains how to use the slug (from list_digests) and the fallback to the latest edition, which gives clear usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this instead of get_episode or search, nor does it state exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral context: translations are only returned 'when the translations exist', and the 'lang' echo reveals what was actually served ('' = English original). This fallback/echo behavior is valuable and not derivable from annotations.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences: what is returned first, then parameter guidance. No wasted framing, though the parenthetical lang explanation is slightly dense.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry safety. The description supplies scope, param conditions, and translation fallback behavior, leaving little for an agent to infer.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description largely restates schema text (digest disambiguating cross-week episodes) and its 'es / zh' enumeration is out of sync with the schema enum that also lists 'hi' and 'fr', which could mislead an agent.

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?

States a specific resource and enumerates the payload ('title, show, summary, and full transcript'), plus a scope constraint ('episodes referenced by a published digest'). The singular framing distinguishes it from list_digest_episodes without naming siblings 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?

Gives clear conditions for optional params: pass 'digest' when an episode spans more than one week, pass 'lang' for translations. It does not explicitly name alternatives (get_digest, list_digest_episodes) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the payload's 'regions' field lists what an edition offers and that region is 'the regional pilot,' which is genuine extra context, but the returned-field enumeration is largely redundant with the existing output schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and the default behavior. Every sentence carries information; only the parenthetical field list feels slightly padded given an output schema exists.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter descriptions, and safety annotations, the description only needs to cover defaults and the region semantics — which it does. The gap is the absence of sibling routing, which would complete an otherwise solid definition.

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 description coverage is 100% and both enums are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces slug as an edition date and clarifies that region mirrors the site's ?region= parameter, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource — listing the episodes an edition references — and even names the returned fields (title, show, published date, episode ids). It frames itself as 'the cheapest way to map a week,' which hints at its niche among siblings, though it never names list_digests or get_digest directly.

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?

Gives clear default behavior ('Omitting slug returns the latest edition's episodes') and when to pass region, but never states when to choose this tool over list_digests, get_digest, or get_episode. Usage is implied by the returned-field list rather than contrasted against alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: newest-first ordering, slug format (YYYY-MM-DD), and scope limited to published editions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first defines scope and output fields, the second gives ordering and chaining instruction. No filler or redundancy; every clause earns its place.

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 no-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is complete: it covers sort order, output fields, and next-step tool routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than params, meeting the baseline for a 0-parameter tool.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('every published energypod.io edition'), enumerates the exact output fields (slug, week label, episode count), and names the downstream sibling tools it feeds. This clearly distinguishes it from get_digest, get_episode, list_digest_episodes, and search.

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?

Explicitly instructs 'Call this FIRST' and explains that the first entry's slug feeds get_digest / list_digest_episodes, giving clear entry-point context. It doesn't explicitly state when-not-to-use vs search, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing 'typo-tolerant' behavior and 'same ranking + excerpts' as the website, which goes beyond annotations and helps set result expectations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and scope, followed by the usage condition. No redundant words; every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present, the return format is known. The description covers the search scope, typo tolerance, ranking reference, and usage condition. Annotations handle read-only and idempotency. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'q' is fully described in the schema as 'Search text (≥2 chars)'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('search') and enumerates the resource types covered ('digests, episodes, people, companies, and channels'), and clarifies that it mirrors the site's /search ranking and excerpts. This distinguishes it from sibling getter/list tools, which focus on specific IDs or lists.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'for ad-hoc discovery when you don't know which edition or episode id you need.' This implies the alternative (use get_digest/get_episode when you know the ID) without naming them, but the condition is clear enough. Lacks explicit exclusions but is still well-directed.

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