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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: an API key is required via _apiKey, and results carry a 'measurement behind the status' (independent podcast/speaker counts excluding the originator, plus the bar in force). That disclosure goes meaningfully beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core search purpose and scope before the caveats, and every clause carries information. It is dense, packing provenance, use case, auth, and query-matching advice into one paragraph, but not padded with waste.

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 6-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers provenance, auth, query behavior, and intended use. It stops short of describing the shape of returned results or pagination flow (cursor/limit), which would round out an otherwise complete definition.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds upstream matching semantics for the query ('matched as a PHRASE, prefer one or two words') that the schema does not convey. Minor blemish: it refers to the parameter as `q` while the schema names it `query`, a small naming inconsistency.

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 (search) and resource (CanonCannon canon ideas / recurring claims across podcasts), and specifies the underlying corpus (10,000+ episodes, 162 shows). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like canon_episode_search (episode-level) and canon_get (single canon lookup).

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?

Gives a concrete decision context — 'tell real cross-show consensus from one author on a book tour' — which is exactly when to reach for this tool. It does not, however, name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to use it, so routing remains partly inferential.

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