podcast_promotions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that data is extracted from transcripts and may have inaccuracies, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only. The single caveat is insufficient for a tool with no structured behavioral hints.

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 long, front-loads the core function, and contains no filler. Every word adds value or caveat.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a clear purpose and a useful caveat about inaccuracies. However, it lacks usage guidance and comprehensive behavioral disclosure, leaving the agent underinformed about when to use it or what to expect beyond the stated output fields.

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?

The schema provides 100% coverage with a description for the only parameter 'podcast_id', so the tool's parameter needs are fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already conveys.

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 that the tool returns sponsors and cross-promotions from episodes, with specific details like product names and promo codes. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from sibling tool 'list_sponsors', which likely returns a simpler list of sponsors.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or contrast with other tools like 'list_sponsors'. The only note about inaccuracies is a caveat, not usage guidance.

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