show_recommendation_brief

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add useful context: the 14-day default window and the exclusion semantics (not saved, not played). However, it never explicitly states the operation is read-only/non-mutating, and says nothing about boundary behavior, cost, or error conditions.

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 waste. The core comparison logic is front-loaded, the output concept ('listen-next brief') is given in-line, and the default window is stated as a short closing sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about what the returned 'brief' actually contains beyond the formats hinted at by response_format. It is silent on result ordering, empty-result behavior, and the shape of the human-readable brief, though the parameters and core logic are otherwise well covered.

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 four parameters (since, max_shows, max_results, response_format) with types, defaults, and formats. The description adds only marginal reinforcement via 'Defaults to the last 14 days', which the schema already states for the since parameter. 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 ('cross-reference') and resource (newly released episodes against saved/played history), and clearly defines the output: new drops NOT yet saved or played. The filtering logic is specific enough that an agent can infer how this differs from near-siblings like get_newly_released_episodes or show_new_episodes, though it never explicitly names a sibling.

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?

Usage context is implied — an agent would reach for this when it wants a listen-next brief of unengaged new episodes — but the description gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives among the many adjacent tools (show_new_episodes, get_newly_released_episodes, check_episode_saved).

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