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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read against an external source. The description adds 'normalized' metadata, hinting at standardized output, but discloses nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness. Appropriate given annotation coverage.

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 tight sentences: scope first, alternatives second. No filler, and the routing information is front-loaded after the primary purpose.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, parameters are fully documented, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers everything an agent needs to select and call 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 description coverage is 100%, so ID, Lang and Country formats are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes 'by Apple show ID' without adding format or defaulting detail. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema 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?

States a specific verb (fetch), resource (normalized metadata for one Apple Podcasts show) and identifier (Apple show ID). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like show_episodes and show_related without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the right alternative for adjacent needs: show_episodes for episodes, show_related for recommendations, and search to find a show. The when-to-use-which logic is fully spelled out.

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