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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: pagination limit ('up to 30 per page'), return field set, and the specific 'fyyd podcast id' and 'RSS feed URL'. No contradictions found.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence provides value: the first states input and pagination, the second states output fields and the core question answered. No wasted words.

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 rich annotations, output schema, and clear input schema examples, the description covers the essential operational details: input term, optional language, pagination, and return fields. It does not explain page semantics, but the schema example covers this, so the description is largely complete for this 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 coverage is 50%, with term and page lacking descriptions. The description adds semantics for 'term' ('title term') and 'count' ('up to 30 per page'), and 'lang' is implicitly 'language code', but 'page' is not explained. It partially compensates for schema gaps but not completely.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('search') and resource ('podcast shows by title term'), and explicitly answers what the tool returns ('fyyd podcast id, title, author, description, RSS feed URL, artwork and episode count'). It distinguishes itself from likely sibling tools by focusing on discovering shows, not episodes.

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 ('search podcast shows by title term') and notes optional language restriction and pagination, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like search_episodes, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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