Find bookable shows on a topic

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. Beyond that, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: it filters to alive, recently-published, episode-rich, contactable shows; it ranks by recent activity rather than relevance; and it describes what each result contains. This goes well beyond the annotation coverage.

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 four sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, contrast with plain search, result contents, and ranking rationale. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of the schema.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent what results look like, how they are ordered, and what criteria were used to select them. Combined with fully documented parameters, this gives the agent enough to call the tool and interpret results 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%, so the schema already explains each parameter, including defaults and their filtering intent. The description loosely echoes 'real episode count' and 'publishing recently' but does not add new parameter-level meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Search for shows on a topic and keep only the ones worth approaching.' It clearly defines the tool's filtering intent and distinguishes it from a plain search, so an agent immediately understands this is the lead-qualification variant rather than a generic search.

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: this is for guest outreach where dead or dormant shows should be excluded. It contrasts with 'a plain search' that returns the whole index, implying when the unfiltered alternative is more appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling tool or state a definitive when-not-to-use condition.

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