List Channel Episodes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the exact permission scope needed ('Read all folder and media data') and the delegated-token authorization behavior, which is genuine operational context an agent needs before calling. It does not, however, address pagination semantics or quota behavior.

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, with the permission block clearly demarcated afterward. Slightly long due to the fenced permission text, but every section serves a function and there is no 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 13-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (channel episodes for an account, batch by hashed id) and the authorization requirements. Combined with the exhaustive schema, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly, though the sibling-routing ambiguity remains a minor gap.

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% across all 13 parameters, including nested cursor object and enum constraints, so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond it, making the baseline 3 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?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists Channel Episodes belonging to an account') and adds a second capability (batch fetch by hashed id). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling list_channel_episodes_by_channel, leaving the agent to infer the account-wide vs per-channel scoping from the name alone.

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 states a second use case (batch fetch off hashed id) and spells out the required token permissions and the delegate-to-contact authorization path. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_channel_episodes_by_channel or get_channel_episode, so the routing decision among siblings is only implied.

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