Full profile of one show

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: it aggregates four underlying data sources into one call and measures cadence from real episode dates, which is important for interpreting results. It does not contradict any annotation and gives good detail about what behavior to expect.

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, all informative, with the core value proposition front-loaded first. The alternative-call comparison is concise and completes the routing guidance. No waste or repetition of schema details.

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 composite read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a strong job of enumerating the data it returns, so an agent kows what the response will contain. It could go further by describing the response shape or edge cases, but the combination of content list, usage guidance, and annotations makes the description effectively complete for invocation.

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 both parameters are already well documented. The description reinforces that the episodes parameter feeds cadence and people analysis, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the full semantic weight, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states what the tool does: returns a complete profile of one show in a single call, enumerating metadata, cadence, episodes, credits, transcript/chapter presence, payment split, and crawler status. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tools get_podcast, get_episodes, get_value_block, and check_feed_health, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 explicit usage guidance: use this instead of making four separate calls, and treat it as the right first call when the question is about one show. This names both the alternatives and the condition that selects this tool, which is exactly what an agent needs to route correctly.

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