op3_episode_downloads

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only, idempotent, and open-world. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: empty results are normal for small/new shows because OP3's daily rollup may not have covered them yet. This prevents the agent from misinterpreting an empty response as a failure. It also communicates the time-window structure of the returned data.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core function and return metrics, the second gives the primary use case and a valuable caveat about empty results. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or 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?

Given the schema fully documents parameters, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description explains the metric, use case, and empty-result semantics, nothing essential is missing. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description already says what is returned. It is complete for a read-only query tool of this complexity.

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 both identifiers and limit fully. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, but it reinforces that the identifier refers to a show, which is consistent with the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load and the description does not need to compensate.

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 states a specific resource (per-episode download counts) and precise metric (downloads in first 1, 3, 7, 30 days plus all-time). This clearly differentiates from show-level tools like op3_show_downloads and curve tools like op3_episode_curve, which would otherwise be plausible 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?

The description gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to compare how episodes performed at equal age.' This provides clear context for why an agent would select this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use it, but the guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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