Get Saved Episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior: page size bounded to 1-50 with a default of 20, offset-based skipping, and the shape of what comes back (items with show and added_at plus pagination info). It does not disclose whether results are ordered by added_at or what happens when offset exceeds library size.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-line purpose, then compact Args/Returns blocks where every line adds information. The docstring formatting is slightly heavy for a two-parameter tool, and the Returns section partially duplicates the existing output schema.

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-only paged list tool with only two optional params, the description covers purpose, parameter bounds, and return shape. The returns sentence is redundant given the output schema exists, and ordering guarantees are unstated, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% — the schema lists only types and defaults with no titles or bounds — so the description carries the full burden and does so: it gives the valid range (1-50) that is absent from the schema, restates the default 20, and explains offset as a skip count for pagination. The only gap is that the two params are not tied to a recommended paging pattern.

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 ('Get') and a precise resource ('podcast episodes saved in the user's library'), which separates it from get_saved_shows and get_show_episodes. It stops short of naming those siblings or explaining how this differs from check_saved_episodes, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 phrase 'saved in the user's library' implies the retrieval use case versus listing episodes of a given show, and the pagination args imply paging through large libraries. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of check_saved_episodes or get_show_episodes as alternatives, and no note on typical page-size strategy.

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