Browse feeds by medium

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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds meaningful domain context — what 'medium' signifies and that the index spans music, video, film, audiobook, and more — which complements the openWorldHint. However, it doesn't disclose return-format or pagination behavior; the schema handles defaults via 'max'. This matches the get_calls calibration: annotations cover the burden, description adds moderate value.

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: the first states the core function, the second explains the domain concept, the third gives the use-case. The essential scoping ('of one Podcasting 2.0 medium') is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema 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?

Complete for a filtered-list tool of this simplicity: the schema fully documents both parameters, annotations carry the read-only safety profile, and the description explains the domain concept, the use case, and the contrast with search. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly; no output schema exists and none is required to understand that it lists feeds.

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%, documenting both 'medium' and 'max' with defaults and enum ranges, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a conceptual layer — 'The medium says what a feed actually contains' — which deepens the meaning of the medium parameter and is reinforced by the enum values. This is useful but not a substantial compensation beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('List'), resource ('feeds'), and scope ('of one Podcasting 2.0 medium'). The description actively differentiates from the search siblings by explaining that the index contains far more than talk shows and that this tool surfaces content a normal search buries — a genuine distinction from search_podcasts and get_recent_feeds.

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 an explicit use directive: 'Use this to find content types that a normal podcast search buries, such as audiobooks or serialised film.' This clearly states when to choose this tool over the search path, with concrete examples. It stops short of naming the exact sibling (search_podcasts) or stating when to prefer other siblings like list_categories, but the primary ambiguity is resolved.

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