Compare shows

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral fact not in the structured fields: OP3 accepts many shows per request, so comparison is one call rather than N.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what it does and what it returns, followed by the batching rationale and use cases. No filler or restatement of the name.

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 no-output-schema, one-param read tool, the description covers purpose, metrics returned, ranking, and use cases. It could say more about the response shape (per-show rows vs aggregate), but it is complete enough to invoke 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% for the single parameter, including the 2–20 limit and the uuid/podcast:guid/feed URL formats, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'many shows in one request' only echoes the batching already documented in 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?

States a specific verb (compare), resource (shows), and the exact metrics compared (monthly downloads, weekly average) with the ranking behavior called out. An agent can distinguish this from op3_show_downloads (single show) or op3_benchmark_apps without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear use cases: benchmarking a show against category peers and tracking a portfolio at once. It does not explicitly name the single-show alternative (op3_show_downloads) as the when-not path, but the multi-show framing implicitly excludes it.

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