search_saved_episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior context (bounded walk, quota against GET /me/episodes, client-side filter), but omits what happens when scan_cap is hit, whether results are truncated silently, and pagination behavior.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the mechanism detail leads and the quota note follows. The fragment 'Quota: GET /me/episodes paged.' is a bit clipped and would read better as a full clause.

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?

Five optional params are fully schema-documented and there is no output schema to explain, so the basics are covered. However, for a search tool in a dense sibling cluster, the description leaves unresolved how it differs from get_saved_episodes and what a truncated or capped scan means for the caller.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including the response_format enum and the env-var defaults. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and the mention of client-side filtering only loosely maps to scan_cap/max_results.

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?

Specific verb (search) plus resource (saved episodes), and it adds real mechanism detail: a bounded walk with client-side filtering. It never names or contrasts the obvious siblings (get_saved_episodes, search_saved_shows), so the agent must infer the split between retrieving all vs. searching.

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 statement of when to use this over get_saved_episodes or search_saved_shows, and no exclusions or preconditions. The only implied guidance comes from the word 'Search' itself, which is not enough to route between the many *_saved_*/search_* siblings.

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