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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses that the default response is intentionally lean, that full transcripts are large and should be narrowed with transcript_speaker/transcript_start/transcript_end, and that 'entities' returns the complete list instead of the top 20. No trait contradicts 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and each subsequent sentence provides actionable routing or behavioral detail. The description is long, but the length is earned by the number of optional sections and alternatives it must disambiguate.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies a solid mental model of the return payload and optional response sections. It also covers the two important edge behaviors — transcript size and the difference between the included related episodes and the full ranked list — so an agent can call it correctly without more context.

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?

Although the schema already covers all 6 parameters, the description adds operational meaning: it explains what each include value yields, notes defaults, flags transcript size, and clarifies that episode_slug can be a slug or canonical ID. This goes well beyond the structured definitions.

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 first sentence names the exact operation ('Return a bundled overview of one podcast episode') and enumerates the payload: title, podcast, speakers with entity slugs, top mentioned entities, and segment/clip counts. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by later stating that mention-level queries belong to particle_podcast_find_mentions and ad-read queries to particle_podcast_get_episode_ads.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance for optional include sections and names direct alternatives with conditions: use particle_podcast_find_mentions for 'every line about X in this episode' and particle_podcast_get_episode_ads for ad reads. It also tells the agent to call particle_podcast_list_related_episodes when the full ranked related list with match basis is needed rather than the five included via 'related'.

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