apple_podcasts_new

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently enumerates what is included (editorial shelves like New Shows, New Seasons, Essentials) and what is excluded (charts-mirroring shelves), adding context beyond basic read behavior. It does not mention pagination or return structure, but the core behavioral scope is clearly defined.

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 two sentences, both dense with relevant information. The first sentence states the purpose and likely content, while the second explains the scope exclusion without any redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main aspects: what it returns, examples of content, and the exclusion of charts-mirroring shelves. It could benefit from more detail on the return structure (e.g., shape of a shelf), but the examples and scope are enough for an agent to decide whether to use it.

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 input schema already provides a clear description for the `country` parameter ('Two-letter storefront country code'), covering 100% of parameters. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific value, though it does reference the URL pattern with `{country}`, which reinforces the parameter's role. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve Apple Podcasts curated "New" editorial shelves.' It provides concrete examples of what the shelves contain and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tool `/apple-podcasts/charts/rankings` by noting it omits charts-mirroring shelves.

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 guidance by stating that charts-mirroring shelves are omitted and pointing to `/apple-podcasts/charts/rankings` as the alternative for that data. This clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling covers the other case. The first sentence implies the intended use case: retrieving curated editorial 'New' shelves.

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