List songs

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful scope information ('the song the person picked and the songs Nocturne suggested', 'Track name and artist only'), which tells the agent the result is a shallow projection rather than full song records. It doesn't mention ordering, pagination behavior, or what happens when an entry has no songs.

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?

One sentence with a colon that front-loads the resource and scope, followed by what is returned. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the 'track name and artist only' note and the picked-vs-suggested distinction are exactly the return-value context an agent needs. Minor omissions are result ordering and behavior for entries without songs, which are low impact for a read-only list tool with fully documented parameters.

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 coverage is 100%, with formats, defaults, the 366-day cap, and the 200 limit already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the notion of a date range and adds no syntax or edge-case guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Songs attached to entries in a date range') and clarifies the data source: the picked song plus Nocturne's suggestions. This is clearly distinguishable from list_entries and get_mood_timeline, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the date-range framing — call this when songs within a period are needed — but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as list_entries if the caller actually wants entry text.

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