apple_podcasts_show_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the data source ('modern podcasts.apple.com show page's listener-cohort recommendation data') and the return type ('You Might Also Like' rail), which is useful. However, it does not mention potential limitations like scraping fragility, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes value by specifying the tool's purpose and data source. It is appropriately concise.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what is returned (the 'You Might Also Like' rail) and adds context about the data source. It is reasonably complete for a simple tool, though it could slightly clarify the shape of the return (e.g., array of show objects), but this is a minor gap.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; all parameter details (id, limit, country) are already fully described in the input schema. The description does not provide any extra context about parameter usage or relationships.

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 retrieves Apple Podcasts 'You Might Also Like' related shows for a single show. It uses a specific verb ('Retrieve'), names the exact resource (related shows), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like apple_podcasts_show and apple_podcasts_show_episodes by referencing the 'You Might Also Like' rail.

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 implies usage (needs a single show's ID) and specifies the scope ('for a single show'), but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives or exclude other tools. It lacks a direct 'when-not' or alternative tool reference.

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