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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Get info' clearly indicates a read-only operation, and listing the return fields (title, duration, scene count) is helpful. However, it does not mention what happens when an invalid episode number is given or whether any authentication is required, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 directly states the purpose and output. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (1 parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It identifies the specific resource and the fields returned, which is sufficient for basic use. It does not explicitly clarify episode numbering or edge cases, but these are likely not critical for a simple getter. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'episode' with its description 'Episode number'. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as range, format, or special values. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and there is no extra value added 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?

The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'info for a specific episode', and specifically lists the fields 'title, duration, scene count'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_content_catalog (which likely returns a catalog) and search_scenes (which searches scenes). The purpose is unambiguous and specific.

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: you should call this tool when you need detailed info for a specific episode, as opposed to a catalog or characters. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention the sibling tools. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it does not fully satisfy the 'explicit when/when-not' criterion.

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