op3_episode_overlap

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the symmetric similarity is near zero for a big/small episode pair and that the smaller side's share is the diagnostically meaningful number. This helps the agent interpret results and avoid misreading the metric.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the primary purpose; the second delivers essential interpretation guidance that prevents a predictable misinterpretation. Every part 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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description explains the core result fields—shared listeners, symmetric similarity, and the smaller episode's audience share—and how to read them. It is slightly light on exact return structure, but the parameter schema covers inputs and annotations cover safety. Overall it is complete enough for confident invocation.

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 parameters (identifier, start, end, bots, top_episodes) are already well documented elsewhere. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does reinforce the meaning of top_episodes by referring to 'the show's busiest episodes'. This is adequate but not compensatory.

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 uses a specific verb ('reports') and resource ('each pair of a show's busiest episodes') and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like op3_episode_downloads or op3_compare_shows by targeting episode-to-episode audience overlap within a single show. It is not a tautology and goes beyond the tool name.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need audience overlap between a show's top episodes—but it never explicitly states alternatives or when not to use it. The interpretive note about interpreting the smaller side's share is useful, but selection guidance against sibling tools is absent.

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