artist_release_digest

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. The WARNING (N artists = N requests) is a genuinely useful behavioral disclosure about request amplification. The mention of dry_run ('describe exactly what would change without performing it') implies the tool mutates state, but the description never explicitly states that the digest records the last-check time or what side effects occur.

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 sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the cost warning and the mitigation guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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 there is no annotation coverage and no output schema, and the tool is stateful (since the last check) amid hundreds of siblings, the description is only partially complete. It covers the core purpose and the cost risk well, but omits explicit state-mutation disclosure, sibling routing, and any sense of return semantics beyond the response_format enum in the schema.

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 schema already documents defaults, enums, and bounds for all five parameters. The description adds minor value by framing max_artists as a budget and dry_run as a preview mechanism, but it doesn't clarify parameter semantics beyond that.

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 (Show) with a clear resource (a digest of new releases since the last check for a watchlist). The watchlist + last-check state makes the purpose distinctive. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from close release-related siblings such as check_artist_releases, whats_new, or artistwatch_new_additions, so an agent must infer the right choice.

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 direct invocation guidance: 'Use max_artists to budget and dry_run to preview,' plus a cost warning. That is real operational guidance, but there is no when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no statement of when not to use it (e.g., for single-artist checks use check_artist_releases).

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