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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by enumerating the fields returned (title, date, topic, summary, bilingual anchor lines, sources, watch link), but it says nothing about ordering, freshness, or how many episodes are returned.

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 compact sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second gives the primary use case. No filler or repetition, though the field list is dense enough to be slightly listy.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly by enumerating the episode fields. The only gaps are ordering, freshness, and limit behaviour, which are minor for a read-only listing tool.

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 single `limit` parameter is fully documented there, including its default of 5 and maximum of 20. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the schema already does the work.

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 a specific resource (video news episodes of Orb Studio anchor David on TikTok) and enumerates what the text version contains (title, date, topic, summary, lines in Russian/German, sources, watch link). It is clear what the tool returns, though it lacks an explicit retrieval verb and does not differentiate itself from siblings like ask_david.

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 gives an intended use ('Use it to summarise an episode for a user and link the video'), which implies when to reach for it. But there are no explicit when-not conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives, so the agent must infer selection against siblings such as ask_david or get_broadcast.

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