Compare several shows side by side

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond those annotations: the six-show cap exists because each show costs several requests against a rate-limited API. The schema further notes that reviews=0 makes the call much faster. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core comparison, the second communicates the value proposition, and the third gives a hard constraint with its reason. The description is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.

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 multi-show aggregation tool with no output schema, the description identifies the metrics being compared and the practical rate-limit constraints, which is enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. A precise statement of the response shape would be an improvement, but the described metrics and well-documented parameters make the tool reasonably complete.

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 100%, with all three parameters already documented with types, constraints, and defaults. The description adds useful context about comparison dimensions but does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics. This is the baseline 3 case where the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: it puts two or more shows side by side across concrete metrics like chart rank, review sentiment, catalogue size, and publishing cadence. This distinguishes it from single-show or single-metric siblings such as get_podcast, get_reviews, or find_chart_position. The 'competitive read' framing reinforces its aggregation role.

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 communicates when to use this tool: when a multi-show competitive comparison is needed, framing it as the alternative to 'a dozen calls plus the joining.' It also gives practical constraints: capped at six shows and rate-limit implications. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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