Get one episode's payment split

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context not in annotations: why the split may differ from the show's, the override mechanism, and that the endpoint only accepts the exact pair of GUIDs. No contradictions.

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, each earning its place: first defines the resource, second explains why it exists, third states the requirement. Slightly awkward phrasing in the first sentence ('The value block for...') but no wasteful content.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to understand what data is returned and why both IDs are necessary. It does not detail the return format, but annotations and the title compensate adequately.

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%, so both parameters are already documented with source hints. The description adds value by emphasizing that both GUIDs are required together and that this pair is the only accepted combination, which clarifies the relationship between parameters beyond the schema.

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 identifies a specific resource: the payment split/value block for a single episode. It explains the purpose ('see who was cut in on a particular conversation') and explicitly distinguishes this from the show-level value block ('can differ from the show's'), which differentiates it from sibling get_value_block.

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 concrete context for when to use it: when a publisher overrides the split per episode and you need to see who was paid on a particular episode. It also states the prerequisite of needing both GUIDs, but does not explicitly name an alternative tool or say when not to use it.

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