search_shows

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context beyond the name: the exact API endpoint and a quota indicator ('Quota: 🟢 single') signaling this is a cheap, single-unit read operation. However, it does not disclose response behavior, error conditions, or any authorization requirements, so its behavioral disclosure is partial rather than rich.

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 terse sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the core purpose and endpoint, the second adds the quota signal. Every word earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information appears immediately.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema in a very large sibling set, the description is minimal but adequate. The schema covers all parameters, and the description adds scope, endpoint, and quota. The main gaps are a lack of guidance for choosing among the many search_* siblings (especially the generic 'search') and no statement about what the return value looks like, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides — the endpoint note (type=show) maps to the query scope but does not clarify individual parameter syntax or behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search podcast shows only'. The word 'only' plus the endpoint (GET /search?type=show) clearly scopes the tool to shows, distinguishing it from sibling search tools like search_tracks, search_episodes, and search_audiobooks. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not cover.

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 usage — you reach for this when you want podcast shows and nothing else — but it never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it. There is no explicit routing to the generic 'search' tool or to search_episodes/search_audiobooks for other content types, so the usage context is only implied by the scoped wording.

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