Search podcasts and charts (Apple Podcasts)

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: it discloses that the tool runs the Apify Actor tacps126/podcasts on the caller's own Apify account and gives a precise cost model ($0.004/podcast, $0.001/episode, $0.5 per-call cap). That is exactly the kind of billing and side-effect context an agent needs before spending money. Missing only failure behavior (e.g., invalid links, empty results).

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?

A dense but well front-loaded two-sentence block: purpose and output fields first, then use cases and cost. Every clause carries information, though the enrichment-field list is long enough to be slightly sing-song; no filler sentences.

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?

With 10 optional parameters, zero required fields, and a nested object, the description should state that at least one of search_terms, chart_genres, or podcasts must be supplied, and that mode inputs can be combined or not. It also leaves extra_input ("Advanced: extra Actor input fields") unexplained. The output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the remaining gap is specifically invocation guidance.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the conceptual grouping behind the flat parameter list — search terms, top charts qualified by country and genre, or direct Apple/RSS links — and by linking "the latest episodes with audio and transcript links" to the include_episodes branch. It does not, however, mention the escape-hatch extra_input parameter or the interaction between inputs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Podcasts from Apple Podcasts search, top charts ... or links") and then enumerates exactly what comes back (owner name, contact email, website, language, categories, episode count, cadence, last episode date, optional episodes with audio/transcript links). No sibling tool covers podcasts, and the phrase "search, top charts ... or links" immediately conveys the three operating modes.

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?

"Use for guest booking, sponsorship outreach and podcast research" gives concrete use cases and implicitly frames the audience for the tool. It stops short of when-not-to-use or how to choose among the three modes (search terms vs charts vs direct links), leaving that inference to the agent, so it is a clear 4 rather than a 5.

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