album_edition_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly states 'Read-only', disclosing the safety profile up front. It also discloses the normalization behavior (edition-noise stripping) that drives detection. It does not describe the return format or pagination behavior, but for a lint tool this is a secondary concern given the safety and matching semantics are both clearly disclosed.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero filler: the first states the action and exact detection rule, and the second delivers the safety flag. Every word earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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-only analysis tool with three fully-documented optional parameters, the description covers the core invocation needs: what it scans, how it matches, and that it is non-mutating. The one gap is return-value semantics — no output schema exists and the description does not hint at what the lint report contains — but this is partially mitigated by the response_format parameter enumerating output 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 schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly: scan_cap explains its default and upper bound, max_results explains its default and env fallback, and response_format explains each enum value. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Lint') targeting a specific resource ('your saved albums') and precisely defines what it detects: the same record across multiple editions, with an explicit matching rule (same name after edition-noise stripping + primary artist, distinct album IDs). This level of specificity distinguishes it from generic duplicate-finding siblings like duplicate_saved_versions even without naming them.

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 purpose statement implies when to use it (when you suspect the same record is saved in multiple editions), but the description never names alternatives or states when NOT to use it. This is a real gap given the sibling list contains duplicate_saved_versions and find_duplicate_saved_tracks, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool. The usage context is clear for the tool itself, but no exclusions or alternative routing is provided.

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