get_several_shows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key batching behavior (single call, ~50 items). However, 'up to 50 per request' sits in tension with the schema's ids description stating longer lists are chunked and merged, which could cause an agent to wrongly reject >50 IDs. Error behavior, handling of invalid/duplicate IDs, and output shape are not addressed (output is partially covered by the response_format parameter).

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb and resource come first, the batch constraint is included, and every word earns its place. It reads as a crisp summary rather than a padded restatement.

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 batch-fetch tool, the definition is mostly complete: no annotations or output schema exist, but the schema richly documents all parameters and the response_format enum explains output modes. Remaining gaps are the vague 'full details' wording, unspecified behavior on invalid or duplicate IDs, and the description/schema inconsistency about lists longer than 50.

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%, with meaningful descriptions for all three parameters including defaults and enum semantics, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds only domain context ('podcast shows', 'full details') rather than new parameter-level meaning; the parameters themselves are already well documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), names the resource ('full details for several podcast shows by ID'), and captures the batch scope in one sentence. This distinguishes it from get_show (single show), list_saved_shows (library-scoped), and the other get_several_* siblings (different resource types) without needing to open the schema.

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 phrase 'by ID in a single call (up to 50 per request)' implies the batch use case, but the description never explicitly states when to choose it over alternatives (e.g., get_show for a single show, list_saved_shows for saved shows) or gives exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than spelled out.

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