deep_cuts_finder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal a significant behavioral trait — 'Quota: 🔴 paginated walk + batched /albums lookups' — which warns about cost and implementation approach. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only/safe, nor describe failure modes or output behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 tight sentences: the first defines the tool's precise behavior, the second flags quota cost. No filler, and the core definition is front-loaded before the caveat.

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 definition and quota warning are useful, but there is no output schema and no annotations, so more context would help: an example, a note about what 'released as singles' relies on, or clarification of max_results behavior. The response_format enum partially covers output variants, which prevents this from being lower.

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 description contributes no parameter-level guidance, but the schema already documents artist_id, max_albums, cuts_per_album, and response_format, giving 80% coverage. Since the description doesn't need to repeat schema details and doesn't compensate for the undocumented max_results, a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb ('Surface') and a well-defined resource: album tracks past position 2 that are neither title tracks nor singles. It clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like b_sides_finder or artist_deep_cuts by enumerating exact inclusion criteria.

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 intended use case is clear from the definition: finding forgotten, non-single album material on a per-album basis. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the criteria makes when-to-use apparent.

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