Everything about one show, in one call

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral trait beyond that: 'Each part fails independently, so a missing piece is reported rather than losing the rest.' This tells the agent how partial failures are handled. No contradictions.

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 with no redundancy: first enumerates scope, second tells when to reach for it, third discloses failure behavior. The title reinforces the value propisition. Every sentence earns is 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?

Even without an output schema, the descrition lists the bundled result categories and the partial-failure contract, which is sufficient for an agent to understand what the call returns. The remaining gap—exact return shape and parameter interations—is minor given full schema coverage and read-only annotations.

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%; the schema already documents show, reviews, storefront, and storefronts with types, defaults, and effects. The description itself adds no param-specific semantics, so it earns the baseline for high 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 names the exact resource ('one show') and the specific data dimensions returned: catalog record, storefront ranks, listener ratings, publishing frequency, and transcripts. It also explicitly frames the tool as the composite answer for 'tell me about this show', distinguishing it from single-purpose siblings.

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 trigger condition: use when the question is 'tell me about this show' or 'how is this show doing' and the answer needs all these dimensions. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use wording or named alternatives, but the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it.

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