Per-episode listening

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it requires Apple Podcasts Connect credentials, listener counts are devices rather than people, and results are ranked for one reporting period. This is a useful and non-obvious disclosure.

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 three sentences with no filler. The first sentence is the functional definition, the second gives the tool's value in deciding which episode worked, and the third states a required credential. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description still conveys the essential return content ('plays and listener counts per episode'), the ordering ('ranked'), the reporting scope, and the auth prerequisite. Combined with a fully described input schema and strong annotations, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly, including date formats, defaults, and the meaning of limit and date_type. The description's 'one reporting period' and 'ranked' lightly reinforce the schema but do not add practical parameter-level meaning beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource ('per episode') and the data returned ('plays and listener counts') for one reporting period, ranked, so an agent knows exactly what kind of analytics this is. The phrase 'which episode actually worked' adds a purpose that separates it from public catalog lookups and from show-level analytics tools like get_show_analytics.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need episode-level listening performance that public data cannot provide. It also states a prerequisite ('Needs Apple Podcasts Connect credentials'), which helps an agent avoid calling it in the wrong auth context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it misses a 5.

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