Show Channel Episode

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the specific required permission scope and the delegate-token authorization behavior. It does not describe error behavior for a missing episode, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and is immediately actionable. The permission block that follows is more verbose than needed and mixes scope names with markdown, but it carries real auth information so it is not filler.

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 simple read-only resource fetch with full annotations and no output schema, the key operational detail an agent needs (required token permission) is present. What is missing is minor: no note on behavior when the id is invalid or not found.

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 both required hashed-id parameters and the account selector are already documented in the schema. The description merely names the same ids without adding format, sourcing, or fallback semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') plus the exact resource ('Channel Episode') and the two identifiers that key it, which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like list_channel_episodes or get_channel. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 never says when to use this single-fetch tool versus list_channel_episodes, list_channel_episodes_by_channel, or get_channel, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the token scope. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Returns'.

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