op3_episode_curve

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses key behavior: the comparison is age-normalized, the median is computed only from episodes at least as old as the horizon, and the tool returns a verdict. This prevents misinterpretation of raw download totals and explains why a young episode won't distort the median.

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, each earning its place: purpose and output, why this tool matters, and how the median is constructed to avoid bias. It is front-loaded and contains no filler.

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 analytics tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains what is returned, how the comparison works, and why it is fair. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without needing more detail.

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 schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantic context by explaining that only episodes at least as old as the horizon enter the median, which clarifies the role of horizon_days, and the notion of 'comparable episodes' gives meaning to compare_episodes. Other parameters like bots and identifier do not need additional explanation.

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 what the tool returns: cumulative downloads by day after publication, the median across comparable episodes, and a verdict. It describes the resource (an episode's curve relative to the show's own median), but it does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like op3_episode_downloads or op3_compare_shows.

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 strong when-to-use signal: it is 'the only fair way to judge a recent episode' and explains why raw total downloads are misleading because older episodes have had more time to accumulate. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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