check_artist_releases

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

With zero annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. The cost disclosure ('N artists in watchlist = N API requests') and the dry_run preview option are genuinely valuable behavioral traits. However, it never states whether the tool is read-only or whether calling it advances the 'last check' cursor — a stateful side effect the agent needs to know before invoking.

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, no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the critical cost warning earns its place as the second sentence. Every word carries information.

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 schema is rich (7 fully documented optional parameters) and the description covers the core purpose plus the main operational hazard. Remaining gaps: no output schema and no description of return values, and no mention of whether the check mutates watchlist state — both matter for an agent deciding to invoke this tool.

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 description adds limited cross-parameter guidance by framing max_artists as a budget control and dry_run as a cost preview, but this largely restates what the schema already documents for those parameters.

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 first sentence states a specific verb (check), resource (watched artists), and scope (new releases since last check or within lookback_days). This is distinctive among siblings — watchlist-based checking differs from saved-artist, top-artist, and followed-artist tools — though it never explicitly names a sibling to contrast against.

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 'since last check' vs 'lookback_days' distinction gives clear context for two invocation modes, and the cost warning with max_artists/dry_run advice is actionable. However, no alternative tools are named and no when-not-to-use conditions are stated, so the agent must infer when to pick this over similar siblings like artist_release_digest or new_music_from_saved_artists.

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