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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the explicit exclusion of transcript content, acceptance of a full URL in addition to slug/number, and the instruction to cite the url. That is meaningful value beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, no filler. The core purpose leads, the returned-field list follows, and the exclusion/alternative and citation instruction are packed into the remaining clauses.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return surface, and it does so thoroughly while also covering the key exclusion and the cross-tool escape hatch. An agent has everything needed to select and call it 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the URL-accepting behavior of 'slug'. The description restates 'by number or slug' without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Returns one episode by number or slug') and then enumerates exactly what comes back: title, date, duration, guests with companies, summary, chapters with timestamps, and links. This is clearly distinguishable from the transcript-oriented siblings.

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 states the negative case ('Does not return the transcript') and names two alternatives (search_transcripts, get_transcript_excerpt) with the condition that selects them. It does not, however, address when to prefer this tool over the sibling search_episodes, so routing guidance is incomplete but strong.

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