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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavioral fact — that matching happens against episode summaries, not titles — which shapes how the agent should phrase input. It says nothing about result ordering, ranking, or what the response contains, and the undocumented 'limit' hints at a paginated/capped result list that is never explained.

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 compact sentences with no filler, front-loaded with the purpose before the query-format hint. Nothing wasted, though the content is thin rather than dense.

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 lookup with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what to pass and what corpus is searched, which is the core need. It still leaves the result shape, the role of 'limit', and ranking behavior unexplained, so it is adequate rather than complete.

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 coverage is 50%: 'moment' is documented in the schema and further enriched by the description's examples (character, place, event), but 'limit' is undocumented in both schema and description. The description adds modest value over the schema text but does not compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Find which episode something happens in') and adds a scope differentiator: it searches written story summaries rather than titles. That contrast implicitly separates it from search_episodes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the instruction to pass 'a few words describing the moment, such as a character, a place or an event', which tells the agent how to phrase the query. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over siblings like search_episodes or get_episode, and no exclusions.

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