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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the scope and that episode counts are returned, but it does not state read-only safety, ordering, pagination behavior, or how the locale affects which arcs are listed.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the scope and one key return attribute efficiently.

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 low-complexity tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides the core scope and return summary. However, with no annotations or output schema, it is minimally complete and leaves out ordering, completeness, and behavioral details an agent might want.

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?

The single locale parameter has 100% schema description coverage with a detailed enum explanation, including defaults and translation behavior. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the resource and scope clearly: it returns all multi-part story arcs with episode counts. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_arc tool, but the word 'All' and the list_arcs name make the listing purpose understandable.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use list_arcs instead of get_arc, search_episodes, or latest_episodes. 'All multi-part story arcs' implies enumeration, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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