show_episode_search

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: implementation is paged API plus client-side substring matching, and the quota signal ( 1–N pages) with 'fetch_all walks' reveals cost/paging traits. Missing are whether this is read-only, what the cap is for fetch_all, and return/error behavior — gaps annotations would normally cover.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The quota sentence earns its place as an operational cost signal. The parenthetical is slightly cryptic ('client-side q', 'fetch_all walks') but compact and acceptable for a technical audience.

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?

With 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description offers useful but thin context: it flags quota behavior but doesn't explain the walking cap or how response_format shapes output. The schema documents every parameter well, so the tool is callable, but an agent is left guessing about return values and quota limits.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the 'client-side q' implementation note, clarifying that query filters results after paging, which is a small genuine bonus. It does not explain the fetch_all/max_results interplay or how response_format's enum values differ, leaving that to the schema.

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 ('Full-text search') and a scoped resource ('within one show's episodes'), which separates it from the global search_episodes sibling. The parenthetical implementation detail (GET /shows/{id}/episodes paged + client-side q) adds precision. However, it doesn't name the sibling tools it should be contrasted with (e.g., search_episodes, get_show_episodes), so an agent must infer differentiation from the scope wording alone.

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 'within one show's episodes' phrasing implies the key use case — searching a single show's catalog — and the quota line warns about cost when fetch_all walks pages. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions (e.g., 'for global episode search use search_episodes'). The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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