get_episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context by naming the fields returned, but says nothing about ordering, default result size, or how the limit interacts with season filtering; an output schema exists so return format is not its burden.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by concrete examples; nothing is padded. It could be marginally tighter, but every element carries information.

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 annotations covering the read-only/closed-world profile, a full output schema, and 100% parameter coverage, the description only needs to frame the purpose and it does so with examples. The one real gap is the absence of any routing against overlapping siblings such as search_episodes or get_missing.

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 series, season, limit, and only_missing are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or behavioral detail about these parameters beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (episodes of a series) and enumerates the notable return fields (has_file, monitored, air date, file quality), so an agent knows what it gets back. It is a noun phrase rather than a clean verb+resource statement and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_series, search_episodes, or search_season, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two examples imply usage contexts (checking whether a specific episode is downloaded, listing missing episodes of a season), which is genuine if indirect guidance. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no alternative sibling is named even though get_missing and search_episodes overlap heavily.

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