album_anniversary_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does useful work: it discloses the quota and backend cost ('one paginated /artists/{id}/albums walk') and clarifies how anniversaries are selected. It does not detail output sorting or error behavior, but the core side-effect-free, quota-relevant behavior is surfaced.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence carries information: the result, the use case, and the quota. No wasted words.

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 read-style lookup with four well-documented parameters, the description covers the main behavior and cost. There is no output schema, but response_format in the input schema partially compensates by describing the available return styles.

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 a little context by explaining window_days and the milestone-flag concept, but it mostly restates what the schema already specifies and does not enrich response_format.

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 what the tool reports: upcoming album anniversaries for an artist within a configurable window, with milestone years flagged. It avoids tautology and conveys a distinct capability, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like check_artist_releases or artist_album_timeline.

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?

It gives a use case ('plan re-listens or anniversary posts'), which implies when an agent would call it. It does not state when to prefer alternatives or when the tool is not appropriate, leaving much of the routing decision to inference.

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