op3_episode_downloads

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the read-only nature implicitly and mentions data recency ('recent episodes'), but lacks details on rate limits, data freshness, or whether all episodes are returned. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences: one defining functionality with clear data details, and one providing usage guidance. Every phrase is informative, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing the time windows returned (first 1/3/7/30 days and all-time), which is good. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., episode identifiers, whether titles are included) and any caveats about data availability. Still, it covers the essential aspects for an API of moderate complexity.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating that 'limit' caps episodes and that 'show_uuid' is needed. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'per-episode download counts for a show from OP3', and specifies the time windows (1/3/7/30 days and all-time). It also distinguishes from siblings by focusing on per-episode data and mentions comparison use case, which sets it apart from aggregate or timeseries tools.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('Needs a show UUID') and provides guidance on using 'limit' to cap results. However, it does not contrast with sibling tools or specify when not to use this tool, which would improve clarity.

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