search_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and adds real value: it discloses the HTTP method/endpoint (GET, implying a non-destructive read), the episode-only scoping constraint, and the quota cost ('Quota: 🟢 single'). It doesn't cover pagination or rate-limit behavior beyond quota, but for a simple search tool the disclosed behaviors are meaningful and sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: purpose and scope are front-loaded, followed by the endpoint and quota. Every element earns its place, and the compact quota line is a useful operational signal rather than noise.

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 moderate-complexity tool with 7 params and no output schema, the description plus fully schema-covered parameters is nearly complete: scope, quota, endpoint, and parameter semantics are all available. The main gaps are no explicit output/return shape description and no named alternatives, though the response_format enum in the schema partially compensates by describing the three return styles.

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 all 7 parameters fully documented including enums, ranges, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, keeping it at the baseline 3 for high-coverage 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?

States a specific verb-resource pair ('Search podcast episodes') with an explicit scope marker ('only') that distinguishes it from siblings like search_tracks, search_shows, and search_audiobooks. Pinning the exact endpoint (GET /search?type=episode) removes any ambiguity about what content type this returns.

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 'only' qualifier implies an episode-scoped search and gives some context for choosing among the search_X siblings, but no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. With many search variants in the sibling list (search_advanced, search_deep, search_saved_episodes, show_episode_search), the agent gets no explicit routing to or away from them.

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