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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile, so the description does not need to restate that. The description adds useful context about scope ('across the catalog') and the kind of metadata returned ('title, duration, speakers, counts'), but it does not disclose pagination behavior, output shape, or any rate-limit considerations. This is adequate but not rich beyond the annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core function and filter categories, and the second sentence gives actionable routing to alternatives. No word is wasted, and every sentence contributes either to understanding or usage. It is appropriately sized given the tool's 14 parameters.

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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and a fully described schema, the description provides the missing high-level framing: what kind of discovery this is for, what data is returned, and which siblings to use instead. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the explicit mention of metadata fields. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 the input schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly with examples, defaults, and constraints. The description merely summarizes filter categories ('podcast, person, company, language, date range, duration, or transcript availability') that are already present in the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List episodes across the catalog with rich filters.' It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings by naming particle_podcast_find_mentions and particle_podcast_search_transcripts as alternatives for different needs. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from similar tools.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use this for episode-level discovery when you only need metadata.' It also provides clear when-not-to-use guidance by pointing to particle_podcast_find_mentions for dialogue around a person and particle_podcast_search_transcripts for ranked retrieval by topic. This is direct routing to alternatives, not just vague context.

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