find_founders_episode

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add the key matching rule (exact number or partial title), which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention pagination, result type, or any side effects. The existence of an output schema reduces some burden, but safety or read-only behavior is not disclosed.

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 a single, well-formed sentence that states the action and the method without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and efficiently communicates the core behavior.

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 lookup tool with an output schema, the description covers the main input semantics and the matching rule. However, it lacks usage guidance and does not mention alternatives, which slightly reduces completeness. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that `query` accepts an exact episode number or a partial title, giving concrete meaning to the otherwise bare string parameter. The `limit` parameter is not explicitly explained, but its purpose (limiting results) is self-evident. Overall, the description adds significant meaning to the main 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 the specific verb 'Find' with a clear resource ('Founders episodes') and states the method ('by exact episode number or partial title'). This distinguishes it from a generic search, but it does not explicitly name or contrast with sibling tools like `search_founders`, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage when the user has an exact episode number or a partial title, but it provides no explicit guidance on when *not* to use this tool or which alternative (e.g., `search_founders`) to choose. The usage context is inferred, not stated.

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