Search podcasts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so no safety ambiguity exists. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the schema: it explains the matching model is keyword-based rather than semantic, and it reveals the return contract (feeds with Podcast Index feed id usable by every other tool). This is meaningful pragmatic context.

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: what it searches, when to use it, and what the result looks like plus a caution about query style. It is front-loaded with the core action and scope, and there is no fluff 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 read-only search tool with a fully documented input schema, the description is complete. It explains the search scope, the result shape (feed id accepted by other tools), the general use case, and a key behavioral caveat about keyword matching. No output schema exists, but the description supplies the essential return contract.

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 parameter meaning is fully documented in structured form. The description reinforces that `q` matches title, author, and owner, matching the schema's wording, but adds no new syntax or semantic detail about the other parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 states a specific action ('Search the Podcast Index for shows by keyword') with explicit scope ('across title, author and owner'). It also differentiates from the sibling `search_podcasts_by_title` by presenting this as the general starting point rather than a title-specific lookup.

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 clearly tells an agent when to reach for this tool: when they have a topic or name and need to find a show. It also gives practical guidance on query formulation ('keyword-based rather than semantic... plain words work better than a sentence'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like `search_podcasts_by_title`, but the positioning as the general entry point makes 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.