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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that read status is included in the result, which is a small but real behavioral detail; it says nothing about result size, ordering, or pagination.

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded, no redundant restatement of the title or schema. 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 simple read-only listing tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essentials and flags the read-status field that an agent would otherwise not know about. Ordering and result-size expectations remain unstated, but the gap is minor.

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%, with both 'days' (1-30, default 7) and 'endDate' (YYYY-MM-DD, default today) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List episodes ... published by podcasts the user follows') and adds the scoping qualifier 'followed', which distinguishes it from list_podcast_episodes and search_episodes. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

'Useful for catching up on what is new' gives an implied context for use, but there is no guidance on when NOT to use it or which sibling (list_podcast_episodes, search_episodes, get_popular_episodes) to pick instead. Adequate but clearly thin.

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