episode_runtime_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It communicates that this is an aggregation/report operation over the 100 newest episodes and lists what statistics are produced. However, it does not clarify how max_results interacts with episodes_limit, mention pagination or API limits, or exlicitly confirm that this is a read-only operation.

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?

A single sentence packs in the action, resource, output statistics, use case, and default behavior with zero filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every clause contributes value.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple report: it names the returned aggregate statistics and the default analysis window, and the schema covers parameter details. Yet with no output schema, it leaves response_format implications and the exact relationship between max_results and episodes_limit ambiguous, so an agent still has notable unresolved questions.

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 desciption coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one useful behavioral detail—the 100-newest-episodes default—but the schema already documents show_id, max_results, episodes_limit, and response_format with their defaults and meanings.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: runtime statistics for one show's episodes, with concrete outputs (count, total/min/median/max duration, longest and shortest episodes). It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like show_runtime_stats or show_episode_timeline, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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?

It offers a clear use case ('to plan listening time') and states the default scope ('100 newest episodes'), which lets an agent infer basic relevance. It does not say when to prefer this over overlapping tools such as show_runtime_stats or show_episode_timeline, nor does it state any exclusions.

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