search_episodes

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false; the description adds substantive traits not present there: the one-hour dedupe window, the force override, and the confirmation gate for large searches to respect indexer limits. That is genuinely useful behavior disclosure, though it says nothing about failure modes or what a confirmation prompt returns.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then constraints, then two natural-language invocation examples that help an agent map user phrasing to parameters. Slightly redundant between the confirm sentence and the schema's own confirm description, but no filler.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the skip/force/confirm semantics cover the main surprises for a six-parameter search tool. The only gap is that no sibling alternative is named, which matters in a catalog containing search_season and search_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 coverage is 83%, so the baseline is 3; the description goes beyond it by explaining that inputs come in two mutually exclusive shapes (episode_ids versus series + season + episodes), which the anyOf/nullable schema does not make obvious. It adds little on confirm beyond restating 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Trigger an indexer search for specific episodes") and immediately names the two acceptable input shapes (by ID, or series + season + episode numbers). It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as search_season or search_missing, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 real operating context (searches within the last hour are skipped, force overrides, large searches require confirmation), but that is behavioral rather than routing guidance. It never says when to pick this over search_season, search_missing, or search_library, so usage versus alternatives is only implied.

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