get_cutoff_unmet_episodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the core filtering behavior and pagination, but it does not mention return shape, defaults, or explicitly confirm that the operation is read-only. The behavioral insight is useful but incomplete.

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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that leads with the action and resource, then adds purpose. Every word contributes meaning; there is no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 paginated read/list tool, the description combined with the fully documented schema is largely sufficient: the selection criterion is explicit and the purpose is clear. It lacks only an explicit pointer to sibling tools with overlapping purposes, such as get_missing_episodes.

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 no parameter-level detail, but the schema already explains page, detailed, sort_key, monitored, page_size, include_series, sort_direction, and include_episode_file adequately.

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 resource ('episodes that have a file but have not reached their quality profile cutoff') and a specific action ('Page through'), and it concludes with the purpose ('candidates for an upgrade'). This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_missing_episodes, which targets episodes lacking files.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the agent needs episodes that already have a file but are below the quality cutoff and may be upgrade candidates. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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