Find shows like this one

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

Annotations already establish a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it searches both genre and subject matter, removes the seed show from results, and honestly discloses the limitation that Apple exposes no listener-subscription data. This goes beyond the structured metadata.

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 front-loaded sentences carry high information density: what it does, how it works, what it is not, and when to use it. The caveat about Apple's data earns its place because it prevents a misleading interpretation of 'similar', and no filler is present.

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 similarity-recommendation tool with no output schema, the description explains the matching logic, the self-removal behavior, and the tool's limitations, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe result shape or ordering, but the input schema and 'candidates to return' wording cover most practical invocation needs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description alludes to the 'show' parameter ('given one', 'its own subject matter') but does not add meaning beyond the schema. The limit and storefront parameters are fully documented in the schema, and the description does not need to repeat them.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Find shows adjacent to a given one') and explains the exact mechanism: searching by genre and subject matter, then removing the input show from results. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search/list tools like search_podcasts or get_top_shows because it is seed-based and adjacency-focused.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('mapping a niche before deciding where a new show fits') and explicitly warns that this is genre/topic adjacency rather than true audience overlap. It does not name sibling alternatives or state 'use X instead', so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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