Recently published soundbites

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

With readOnlyHint and destructiveHint already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the results are clipped by publishers, marked as the best moment, ordered as newest, and span the whole index. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is compact and front-loads the core definition before the use-case sentence. The second sentence is slightly promotional and somewhat redundant, but it does add practical context about the feed's purpose. Each part has some value.

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 low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description tells the agent what it gets, why those items count as soundbites, and broadly how results are ordered. It stops short of describing exact output shape or pagination, but those are less critical here.

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%, and the single optional max parameter is fully documented in the input schema with range and default. The description does not add additional parameter context, but the schema already carries the burden adequately.

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 (get newest soundbites) and establishes the key scope: across the whole index. It also explains which clips qualify, distinguishing it from per-podcast soundbite tools like get_soundbites.

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 clear use cases: a ready-made feed of podcasters' picks and a way to find shows using Podcasting 2.0 tags. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the global scope and ready-made framing make the intended context clear.

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