SRG SSR Audio – Episoden einer Sendung

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: episodes are returned in chronological descending order and limited to the latest ones. It does not mention pagination limits or response shape, but the output schema partially covers that.

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 compact and well-structured: core action, use case, ordering note, and example each appear in a distinct tagged section. There is no redundant filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the output schema, safety annotations, use case, ordering guarantee, and example, the description is sufficiently complete for a straightforward read-only episode lookup. Minor gaps such as explicit pagination behavior and sibling-tool differentiation prevent a perfect score.

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 example (business_unit='srf', show_id='echo') adds practical meaning by showing how to supply the two required parameters. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explain page/page_size semantics or enumerate allowed business_unit values, leaving significant parameter meaning to inference.

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 ('Ruft ... ab') and resource ('neuesten Episoden einer Radiosendung'), making it clear the tool returns recent podcast/radio episodes. It is distinct from video and livestream siblings via the 'Radiosendung' qualifier, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 use-case tag ('Auffinden konkreter Radiobeiträge oder Podcast-Folgen') implies when the tool should be used. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools like srgssr_audio_get_shows or srgssr_audio_get_livestreams.

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