Get one episode

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, non-destructive), and the description adds compatible behavioral detail: the contents of the full episode object and the non-obvious default that a bare GUID resolves to 'whichever episode the index finds first.' That ambiguity disclosure is real value beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Three sentences, every one load-bearing: scope, identifier preference, and the ambiguity caveat. Purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler, no repetition of the title, and no restatement of annotation fields.

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 lookup with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers both what is returned and how to disambiguate the target episode. The component list partially substitutes for the missing output schema. It could go further by naming the piecewise siblings explicitly, but nothing an agent needs to make a correct call is absent.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters well, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the episode_id preference ordering ('fastest path') and spells out the consequence of omitting show when using a GUID, which goes beyond the schema's notes.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get one episode') and enumerates the exact contents returned: description, credited people, soundbites, value block, transcript, and chapter pointers. This enumerated scope clearly separates it from specialized siblings like get_transcript, get_chapters, get_soundbites, and get_value_block, as well as the plural get_episodes.

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?

Gives clear call-time guidance: prefer the Podcast Index episode_id as the 'fastest path,' and only use a GUID together with a show. It explains the GUID uniqueness constraint and the fallback behavior if show is omitted. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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