daily_pick

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and covers key traits: it explicitly declares read-only behavior ('1-2 reads'), low cost ('local compute'), and determinism — the non-obvious behavior that repeated calls with the same date return the same result. It does not detail failure modes (e.g., empty pool for a date) but discloses the most decision-relevant traits.

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 no filler: the core concept and determinism trait are front-loaded, mechanics are compressed into parentheticals, and the quota note is a standalone compact signal. 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?

For a 3-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the algorithm (seed, pool, tiebreak), the determinism contract, and cost. The main gap is an explicit statement of the return value shape, though the response_format enum partially compensates by naming the output styles.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds modest semantic grounding — 'date-seeded' ties to the date parameter and 'most-played pool' clarifies what pool_size sizes — but does not go beyond the schema's own descriptions, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific operation — a date-seeded pick from recently-played highlights — and leads with 'Deterministic', explicitly distinguishing it from random-selection siblings like surprise_me and saved_tracks_roulette. The 'same date, same pick' gloss removes any ambiguity about its core behavior.

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 usage context through 'Deterministic' and 'same date, same pick' — use this when a stable, repeatable daily pick is wanted — and the quota note signals low cost. However, it never names alternative tools (e.g., surprise_me for a non-deterministic pick) nor states when not to use it, leaving routing to inference.

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