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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: the answer is drawn from transcripts, it returns cited clips with episode seq/speaker/timestamps, and it consumes the user's Ask quota. Quota cost is the kind of side effect an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then return shape, then constraints and cost. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence carries information the agent can act on.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, return contents, input limit, and cost. Minor gaps remain: it doesn't say what happens on an empty/ungrounded question or whether results are scoped to followed podcasts, but nothing essential to calling it 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% for the single parameter, so the schema already documents 'question'. The description's 200-character limit restates what the schema already conveys, adding no new semantics. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (ask) and resource (questions answered from podcast transcripts across Podwise), and the return shape (answer plus cited clips) is named. It is distinguishable from transcript-fetching siblings like get_episode_transcript or search_episodes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the many sibling tools. The scope ('across Podwise') is stated, but the agent must infer that this is the tool for synthesized cross-episode answers rather than retrieval or search.

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