get_me_progress_by_id_by_episode_id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method and path, such as whether a 404 is returned for missing progress, authentication requirements, or any side effects. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also contributes no meaningful transparency beyond 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 only four lines, but most of it is redundant with the tool name ('Get me progress') and the schema (parameter names and types). The structure front-loads a vague phrase rather than stating the resource clearly, and the Args section adds little value. True conciseness would preserve useful information, which is missing here.

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 simple GET-by-ID tool, the output schema likely covers return values, and annotations cover safety, but the description still lacks essential context about what 'progress' represents and how to correctly construct the path parameters. An agent could not confidently choose the right ID values without external knowledge or sibling tool comparison, making the definition incomplete for correct 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 0%, and the description merely labels 'id' and 'episode_id' as path parameters, adding no semantic meaning. It does not explain what IDs these refer to (e.g., library item ID, episode ID) or how they relate to the resource being fetched. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get me progress' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and does not specify what 'progress' refers to (e.g., audiobook or podcast listening progress). The URL pattern hints at a specific item and episode, but the description alone does not differentiate this from siblings like list_me_progress or patch_me_progress_by_library_item_id_by_episode_id.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of the intended use case, such as retrieving a single progress record by library item ID and episode ID, nor any contrast with list_me_progress or other progress-related tools.

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