open_podcast_episode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the verified UI flow ('Cmd+F, clipboard-paste the title (keystroke typing corrupts punctuation)'), warns about exactness ('top search result is what gets opened'), and mentions the clipboard method, giving the agent critical knowledge about how the tool operates and its quirks.

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, no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the verified UI flow, and the third gives usage order. Each sentence earns its place, and the description is front-loaded with the core function.

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 tool with one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is fully complete. It covers the source of the title, the exact UI mechanics, the prerequisite workflow, and the behavior of opening the top search result. No critical information is missing.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'title' parameter, including its source and exactness requirement. The description adds a practical nuance: 'The title should be fairly exact' and clarifies the consequence of exact matching ('top search result is what gets opened'), enriching the parameter's semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool 'Searches Apple Podcasts for an episode title... and opens its episode page', using a specific verb (searches, opens) and resource (Apple Podcasts episode page). It distinguishes itself from sibling 'play_podcast_episode' by focusing on opening the episode page rather than playing it.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before play_podcast_episode', indicating the intended workflow and position relative to a sibling tool. It also specifies the source of the title ('from get_recent_podcast_episodes'), providing clear context on when to apply this tool.

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