Trace where a person has appeared

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses substantial behavior: grouping by show, newest-first ordering, including roles, flagging likely self-appearances, and restricting to Podcasting 2.0 person tags. It also explains how to interpret empty results, which is valuable context the annotations do not convey.

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?

The description is tightly structured: the first sentence states the core result and ordering, the second gives the research use case, and the third covers the key limitation and interpretation. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape, and it does: episodes credited, grouped by show, newest first, with roles, and own-show flagging. The PC2.0 coverage limitation and empty-result interpretation make the tool's real-world behavior clear enough for an agent to call it and judge the result 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. The description reinforces that 'name' refers to the credited person and that 'max' limits episodes considered before grouping, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 does: it finds every episode a named person is credited on, grouped by show and ordered newest first, with their role. It also frames the purpose as guest research ('who has had this person on'), which helps distinguish it from generic episode search, though it never names a sibling tool like search_episodes_by_person.

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 clear usage context, explicitly saying this is for guest research and listing the questions it answers. It also gives an important limitation: only shows publishing Podcasting 2.0 person tags are found, so an empty result is not evidence of absence. However, it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or direct the agent to an alternative sibling tool.

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