Saved, bookmarked or downloaded episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. Beyond that, the description usefully explains that the results come from the Podcasts app's own shortlist and that the data is not derived from synced play-position, which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not contradict 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?

Two focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the resource, and the second adds the crucial why-to-use-it context. 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?

For a simple, read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is complete enough. It provides source context, a reason to prefer it over play-position-based lists, and no critical gaps for an agent to invoke it 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% and the parameter descriptions already explain kind, full, and limit well. The description's mention of saved/bookmarked/downloaded overlaps with the kind enum without adding new per-parameter semantics, so 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 identifies the resource precisely—episodes flagged as saved, bookmarked, or downloaded in the Podcasts app—and adds a useful distinguishing nuance: this is the app's own shortlist and an explicit interest signal. However, it is expressed as a noun phrase rather than a direct verb phrase like 'List...' or 'Returns...', so the action is implied by the tool name rather than stated in the description.

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 a clear usage context: use this when you want the app's explicit interest signal rather than inferred play-position data, and it explicitly notes that play-position data does not sync to a Mac. It implies a contrast with siblings like list_recent_episodes, though it does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool.

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