Podcasts broadcasting live now

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

Annotations already provide read-only and open-world hints. The description adds behavior beyond that: the list is small and fast-moving, a handful of results is normal, an empty response is possible, and each entry contains start time, end time, and status. This gives the agent expectations that are not present in the annotations or schema.

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 with the main behavior front-loaded in the first sentence. Each remaining sentence adds non-redundant value: expected list size/volatility and the fields carried by entries. There is 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers scope, result-size expectations, the possibility of an empty list, and the entry fields. It does not specify ordering or pagination, but these are minor gaps given the low complexity and fast-moving nature of the data.

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?

There is one parameter, max, and the input schema fully documents it with a default of 20, minimum/maximum bounds, and a description. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource: getting episodes currently marked live across the whole index, and even identifies the source data as the Podcasting 2.0 liveItem tag. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling episode-listing endpoints like get_recent_episodes or get_reending.

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?

It is clear that this should be used when the task calls for currently-live episodes across the entire index, and it sets expectations with warnings about small, fast-moving results and possible empty lists. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not conditions, so it has clear context but no formal exclusion routing.

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