Podcast

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

Annotations already declare openWorldHint, non-idempotent, non-destructive, and non-read-only behavior, so the bar for additional disclosure is lower. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it may consume paid API credits, requires confirm=true, and explains that read-like POST requests do not publish to social platforms. It does not cover auth or rate-limit details, but the credit and confirmation warnings are strong behavioral disclosures.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by a useful naming/URL clarification and critical credit/confirmation requirements. Three sentences, no obvious filler. The final sentence about read-like POST behavior is slightly tangential but still earns its place by addressing a potential agent concern.

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?

Given no output schema, the description could have described the return shape, but it is otherwise complete for a detail-retrieval tool. It covers purpose, resource naming, input alternatives, credit cost, and the confirm requirement. Annotations handle the safety profile, so the description is sufficiently complete 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter semantics by clarifying that Spotify podcast URLs use /show/, which helps an agent construct or validate the url parameter. It does not describe the account or confirm parameters beyond what the schema already says, but the URL-format insight is a useful addition.

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 and resource: retrieves detailed information about a Spotify podcast by id or URL. The note that Spotify calls podcasts 'shows' internally and uses /show/ URLs further disambiguates the resource. The agent can tell this is a detail-lookup tool rather than a search or episode-list tool.

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 usage when you have a podcast id or URL, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of siblings such as spotify_search or spotify_podcast_episodes. It also does not state when not to use it. The id/URL alternative is helpful but does not constitute full usage guidance.

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