Trending podcasts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying the output is enriched with feed URLs and episode counts, and that the result can be filtered by genre. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent of the expected content.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose, the two modes, and the enriched output. There is no wasted text; every phrase adds meaning and the structure is optimal for quick scanning.

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 relatively simple (3 optional params, no required fields) and the annotations cover safety. However, since there is no output schema and the parameter semantics are not fully explained, the description leaves an agent uncertain about how to set limit and country meaningfully. The enrichment detail is helpful, but the return structure and parameter usage are only partially covered, making it minimally adequate.

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 has 3 optional parameters with no description coverage (0%). The description names the 'genre' concept ('overall or by genre') but does not explain what values genre accepts, what limit and country mean, or how they affect results. Given the low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate adequately for the callers' understanding of the parameters.

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 verb (list/trending), the resource (Apple's top podcasts), and the scope (overall or by genre). It also mentions the enrichment with feed URLs and episode counts, distinguishing its output from a simple ranking. There is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 implies the usage context: it lists top podcasts, which is distinct from the sibling tools like roulette (random selection) or peek (inspection). It explicitly tells the agent there are two modes (overall or by genre), but does not explicitly say when not to use it or mention alternatives. Still, the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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