get_show_latest_episode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the operation is a single GET, specifies the fields returned (duration, description, resume point), and states the default response style ('concise' prose). This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema, though it stops short of covering edge cases or explicit side-effect guarantees.

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 that names the action, resource, key return fields, and the default prose behavior with zero filler. Every phrase 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract: single newest episode, returned fields, and default response format. It could be slightly more complete by explicitly noting read-only/no-side-effect behavior and by naming a sibling to prefer for listing episodes, which prevents a perfect score.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds the return-field semantics and reaffirms the 'concise' default, but it does not add significant new parameter-level meaning. This is the expected baseline when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('the single newest episode of a show'), and names the return fields (duration, description, resume point). The phrase 'what dropped last?' clarifies the exact intent and differentiates this from sibling tools that list episodes or return arbitrary episode details.

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 the use case: get the single newest episode rather than a list. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_show_episodes or get_newly_released_episodes, nor does it state when not to use this tool. The guidance is present only by implication.

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