list_episodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it discloses the return fields (title, date, duration, guests, URL), which helps. However it says nothing about pagination defaults/total counts, result caps, or auth needs, and those behaviors are only implied by the schema. Adequate but not rich given zero annotation coverage.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste: purpose and filters first, return payload second, routing guidance last. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 simple read/list tool with full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, filters, and return shape, which is what the agent needs. It omits any mention of pagination behavior, but since limit/offset are self-documented in the schema and no output schema exists, the gap is minor.

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 year/month/guest/limit/offset are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the filtering dimensions (year/month/guest) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already gives, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Browse the Entra.Chat episode archive") plus the filterable dimensions, and names the sibling tools (get_episode, search_entra_podcasts) it is distinct from. An agent can tell this is the enumeration tool versus the retrieval/search tools without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: "Use this to discover what episodes exist before using get_episode or search_entra_podcasts." It gives clear context and names alternatives, but does not explain when to prefer search_entra_podcasts over this list tool (e.g. for keyword lookups), so the boundary between the two discovery paths is left to inference.

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