discovery_digest

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds a useful quota/cost disclosure (~2 + N small API calls) and the component list suggests read-only aggregation, but it does not explicitly state read-only semantics, auth requirements, potential failure modes, or how the result is formatted. This is meaningful context but incomplete.

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 description is compact and front-loaded, with the main purpose in the first sentence and the quota detail in the second. Both sentences earn their place and there is no redundancy with the schema, though the first sentence is slightly dense with its three-part list.

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 four-parameter aggregator with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides a solid component-level overview and quota cost, which helps an agent understand scope. However, it lacks an explicit return-shape description, safety/side-effect clarity, and sibling differentiation, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 days, market, top_artists, and response_format are already fully documented with types, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description clearly defines the tool as a combined digest synthesizing three specific data sources: latest releases from top artists with freshness flags, a tag:new catalog search seeded with a genre, and a followed-artist count. It conveys what the user receives and the 'from your own data' phrasing separates it from many single-purpose sibling tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 obtaining a consolidated discovery overview and describes its inputs, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Closely related siblings such as artist_release_digest, search_fresh, and new_music_from_top_artists are not mentioned, so an agent must infer when this combined digest is preferable.

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