Get one podcast

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it resolves multiple identifier formats, detects the form automatically, and returns a specific set of show details. No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences with no filler: first states return value, second states accepted inputs and auto-detection, third gives usage route versus sibling. Front-loaded with the most important information.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description fully explains input flexibility, return contents, and when to use it. Annotations cover safety, and no output schema exists, so the description adequately covers what an agent needs to invoke it 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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces the parameter semantics and adds the useful directive to 'pass what you have rather than converting it,' which goes beyond the schema by clarifying that conversion is unnecessary.

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?

Description states a specific operation: retrieve everything Podcast Index knows about one show, and enumerates the exact fields returned (metadata, category, episode count, last publish, Podcasting 2.0 features). It explicitly distinguishes itself from search_podcasts, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Start here when you already know the show; use search_podcasts when you are still looking for it.' It also clarifies that any identifier form is accepted and tells the agent not to convert identifiers, removing a likely error.

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