artist_first_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add value by mentioning the quota ('one paginated walk + 1 GET /albums/{id}'), which indicates resource usage and multiple API calls. However, it does not disclose error behavior, how 'earliest' is determined (e.g., by release date vs. first appearance), or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the quota is stated as a second informative note. It is appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool has 2 simple parameters and no output schema. The description explains what is returned (label, copyright, track listing, runtime) and mentions the quota, which is useful operational context. It does not explicitly define 'earliest release' (e.g., by release date, original vs. reissue), which could be ambiguous, but given the specific name and the mention of 'across all album groups', it is mostly complete. A more precise definition of 'earliest' would push it to a 5.

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 both parameters are already fully documented. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying acceptable input formats or the impact of response_format on the output. It simply mentions the return card, which is not parameter-specific. This matches the baseline of 3.

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 verb (Locates) and resource (artist's earliest release), and specifies what is returned (full card: label, copyright, track listing, runtime). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'artist_debut_release_finder', which likely has a similar purpose, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to prefer it over artist_latest_release_report or artist_debut_release_finder. It does not mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context on its own.

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