get_episode_details

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the default response style ('concise' prose) and lists returned metadata fields, but it does not describe error behavior, market effects, or how the 'detailed' and 'json' formats differ beyond the schema's own enum descriptions.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful information: the action, the resource, the key metadata fields, and the default output style.

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, read-only single-episode fetch, the description is largely complete: parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description names the return fields. It could be more complete by noting how it relates to get_episode, but the core calling context is covered.

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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond reinforcing the default response_format and the focus on one episode, which matches the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 a specific action ('Fetch'), a resource ('one episode'), and names the key metadata fields returned. It is unambiguous about scope, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling get_episode.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_episode, get_several_episodes, or show_episode_search. The phrase 'for one episode' implies a use case, but there are no exclusions or explicit selection criteria.

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