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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=true, so the description usefully adds that transcript lines are omitted by default and that include_transcript returns a large payload — a real behavioural warning. It also discloses the dual list/read mode that annotations do not cover. Missing only things like auth or rate-limit context.

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 English body is well front-loaded, but the Arabic restatement duplicates the same content for no functional gain and the trailing Args block re-states what the schema already encodes. Roughly a third of the text is redundant.

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 detailed, yet the description still lists the returned sections (summary, chapters, guests, topics, ad breaks, name fixes, on-screen text). With both parameters explained and the routing to get_transcript given, nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does it: video_id is 'omit to list analysed episodes' (mapping null default to list behaviour) and include_transcript is described as 'Also return every transcript/translation line (large; default false)', adding size and default context beyond the bare schema type.

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 and resource ('Read the saved analysis of an episode') and enumerates the fields returned, plus the second mode (list all analysed episodes when no video_id). It explicitly names get_transcript as the sibling that does the text part, so the agent can distinguish behaviour without opening either schema.

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 routes the agent: transcript lines are excluded unless include_transcript is true, and 'use get_transcript for the text, or the download links.' It also states the condition that switches to list mode (omit video_id). Both when-to-use and the alternative are named.

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