publisher_portfolio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden and does reasonably well: it discloses that it samples recent episodes per show, states the default sample size, and clarifies that the runtime figures are based on a sample rather than the full catalog. It does not state explicitly that the operation is read-only, but the report-like language strongly implies it.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the core concept, enumerates the output metrics, and ends with the default behavior. Every phrase earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 complete enough for a read-oriented report tool: it states the scope (saved shows), the grouping concept (per publisher), and the key output values. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return expectations, though it does not mention ordering, pagination behavior, or whether max_results applies to publishers or to total rows.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a small amount of context by explaining the eps_per_show default in terms of 'recent episodes,' but it does not significantly enrich understanding of max_results or response_format beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: it builds a per-publisher portfolio from the user's saved shows and lists the exact metrics it computes (show count, listed episode totals, sampled runtime). It is specific enough to be useful, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar-sounding sibling tools like saved_shows_publisher_census.

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 when to use it — when you want a publisher-level view of your saved shows — but it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer. There is no mention of sibling tools such as show_runtime_stats or saved_shows_publisher_census that may overlap.

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