b_sides_detector

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose quota risk ('🔴 paginated walks + batched /albums lookups') and the underlying scan approach, which goes beyond the schema. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns by default, or any failure/edge-case behavior.

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 definition is front-loaded and compact, with the quota note placed at the end. The 'Also covers: b_sides_finder (same discography scan) — See also: b_sides_finder' segment is redundant and slightly garbled, but the description is otherwise efficient.

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 description gives the core concept, scan scope, and quota warning, which is enough to start an invocation. But it lacks return-format expectations beyond the response_format enum, omits usage guidance relative to b_sides_finder, and does not explain the max_results cap, leaving the agent with moderate uncertainty.

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 75%, so the schema does most of the parameter-documentation work, and the description does not directly explain any parameter. It does add conceptual meaning by tying the scan to 'an artist's singles,' which helps interpret artist_id and max_singles, but max_results remains undocumented in both schema and description.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: detecting B-sides as non-LP tracks on an artist's singles. It distinguishes the concept from album-track tools, though the closing 'Also covers: b_sides_finder (same discography scan)' blurs the boundary between this tool and the identically-purposed sibling, preventing 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 implies this is for finding an artist's non-album singles catalog, but it never states when to choose b_sides_detector over b_sides_finder or alternatives like get_artist_discography. The 'See also' reference is not a clear selection criterion.

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