list_episodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return fields (episode number, title, date, duration, guests, URL) and filter options, implying a read-only browse operation. However, it doesn't mention ordering, pagination behavior, or default response size beyond what the schema already documents.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return fields and a clear usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 low-complexity listing tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, filtering, and usage context relative to siblings. It could mention sort order or default behavior, but the schema covers limit/offset, making it sufficiently complete.

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 mentions year/month/guest filtering, which matches schema fields, but adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Browse') and clearly identifies the resource ('Entra.Chat episode archive'), with optional filtering by year/month/guest. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly positioning it as a discovery tool before using get_episode or search_entra_podcasts.

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 when to use this tool: 'Use this to discover what episodes exist before using get_episode or search_entra_podcasts.' It gives a clear context and names the primary alternatives, though it doesn't detail when not to use it (e.g., for full-text search).

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