b_sides_finder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It candidly discloses quota costs ('Quota: 2 walks + 1 /albums?ids= call per 20 releases per group'), which is unusually transparent for a tool definition. It also describes the algorithm's internal steps enough to set expectations about potentially expensive or slow operations. It doesn't mention failure modes or pagination behavior, but the quota and method disclosure is strong for a read-only analysis tool.

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: one substantive definition with an internal heuristic, one quota statement. The most decision-relevant content (what it returns and how) is front-loaded. The sentence is dense but not bloated. Minor deduction for jargon ('chunked full-album fan-in') that could have been simplified without losing meaning.

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 defines the tool's unique value and adds quota transparency, which is important context for an agent deciding whether to call it. There is no output schema, so it doesn't describe return shape, but the response_format parameter already covers output options. It lacks explicit alternative routing and edge-case caveats (e.g., artists with no singles), so a 4 rather than 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?

The schema already covers 75% of parameters with descriptions, including artist_id resolution and response_format. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the schema, but it does give context for why max_per_group matters: releases are grouped and scanned per group. With baseline 3 for high schema coverage, this is right.

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 states a specific verb ('surfaces') and a clear resource: an artist's b-sides defined as tracks on singles/compilation releases whose normalized titles never appear on the artist's core album-group releases. It also names the method (discography walks + chunked full-album fan-in), which adds useful specificity. It doesn't explicitly distinguish it from the closely named b_sides_detector sibling, though, so it doesn't fully differentiate among siblings.

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 explains what the tool computes — b-sides not appearing on core albums — which implies when to use it: when you want an artist's non-album tracks. It does not explicitly name alternatives like b_sides_detector or get_artist_singles, nor state when not to use this tool. Quota information is operational but not usage routing.

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