Find publicly readable transcripts

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: transcripts are show-chosen, publicly fetchable, often absent, and the tool returns nothing rather than erroring. The 'unlike Apple's own transcripts' distinction adds real beyond-schema context, and nothing contradicts the 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then enriches with essential distinctions and edge-case behavior. Every sentence contributes meaning without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with a small, well-documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the output fields (URL, format, language), the source context, and the no-transcripts edge case. Combined with the schema, nothing important 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters well: 'show' accepts an RSS URL, Apple Podcasts id, or Apple Podcasts URL, and 'limit' specifies count and scan order. The description adds output details but not additional parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 begins with a specific action and resource: 'List episodes of a show that publish a transcript in their feed, with the URL, format and language of each.' It clearly differentiates these from Apple's own transcripts, so an agent understands exactly what the tool returns and how it differs from related concepts.

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 provides useful context for when to call this tool: it covers publicly fetchable Podcasting 2.0 transcripts, not Apple's private transcripts, and warns that most shows publish none and that the tool returns nothing rather than failing. It does not name sibling tools as alternatives, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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