Get Saved Shows

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 that each item carries an 'added_at' field and that results are paginated, but it does not mention auth requirements, ordering guarantees, or what an empty library returns; the Returns block also overlaps with the existing output schema.

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 docstring-style layout front-loads the one-sentence purpose and then groups args and returns, which is easy to scan. The Returns section is partly redundant with the output schema, but no sentence is genuinely wasteful.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the definition covers purpose, parameter ranges and pagination shape. The only real omission is routing guidance among the many sibling read/check tools.

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 carry the load, and it does: it supplies the 1-50 valid range for limit and the defaults for both limit (20) and offset (0), none of which appear in the schema. It could still clarify offset semantics relative to ordering, but the critical constraints are present.

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 and resource ('Get the podcast shows saved in the user's library'), which cleanly separates this tool from siblings such as get_saved_tracks, get_saved_albums and get_saved_audiobooks. It does not explicitly name the near-neighbours check_saved_shows or get_show_episodes, so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Reading 'saved' shows implies the retrieval use case, and the pagination args hint at paging through a library. However, nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over check_saved_shows (existence check) or get_show_episodes (episode listing), and there are no stated preconditions such as required auth scopes.

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