search_podcast

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does but lacks critical behavioral details: it doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of results with metadata), potential rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions. The description is functional but insufficient for safe agent invocation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that packs two distinct use cases without redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and front-loads the core functionality. However, it could be slightly improved with structural separation (e.g., bullet points) for the two operations, but this is minor.

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 the tool's dual-purpose nature (search and parse), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., search results list, parsed episode details), how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool with two distinct operations and zero structured metadata, more descriptive context is needed for reliable agent use.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (query and source). The description adds marginal value by clarifying that the query parameter serves dual purposes (search term vs RSS URL) and implying the source parameter's role, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema states. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 description clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('search for podcasts or episodes on YouTube' and 'parse an RSS feed URL') and identifies the resources involved (podcasts/episodes, RSS feeds). It distinguishes between two distinct operations but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'scrape_podcast' or 'check_new_episodes', which prevents a perfect score.

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 contexts through the dual-purpose nature (YouTube search vs RSS parsing) but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'scrape_podcast' or 'check_new_episodes'. No when-not-to-use scenarios or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage decisions to inference.

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