Read an episode's chapters

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds valuable behavioral context: excluded chapters are intentionally retained and labelled rather than dropped, with a clear rationale about sponsor reads and timeline accuracy. It also discloses that chapters are optional and commonly absent, which is not visible from the schema or annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then efficiently adds usage context, behavioral nuance, and a caveat about availability. Every sentence contributes necessary information, with no redundant filler or restating of the title.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter and strong annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description fully covers what the agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. It explains what data is returned, how excluded chapters behave, and how this relates to transcripts, leaving no major gaps despite the lack of an output schema.

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 only parameter, episode_id, is already documented as a Podcast Index episode id. The description confirms the resource is tied to an episode but does not add extra format, validation, or usage details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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 a specific action ('Fetch and read'), a specific resource ('chapter list a publisher attached to an episode'), and the contents (titles, start times, images, links). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the transcript-related sibling tools by framing chapters as the publisher's table of contents and cheaper than reading the transcript.

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 context for when to use the tool: when the question is 'what is in this episode and when', and notes it is cheaper than reading the transcript. It also cautions that chapters are optional and most episodes have none, which helps agents set expectations, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or provide a formal when-not-to-use rule.

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