Search podcasts by title only

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it performs title-only matching, ignores author/owner, and is more precise for known names but weak for topic searches. This is useful qualitative behavior not evident from the schema alone.

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, front-loaded with the core scoping constraint, then the usage context, then a direct comparison to the sibling. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant repetition of schema or annotation 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?

The tool is a simple search operation with robust annotations and full schema coverage. The description fully covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how it compares to alternatives. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and 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 schema fully documents all four parameters. The description adds general context about title-only matching but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Search shows by title alone') and explicitly distinguishes itself from search_podcasts by clarifying it ignores author and owner. It is immediately clear what this tool does and how it differs from its closest sibling.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance: use it when you know roughly what a show is called and a general search returned too many unrelated results. It also directly names search_podcasts as the alternative and characterizes when that sibling is better ('much worse for a topic').

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