duplicate_saved_versions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it explicitly declares 'Read-only.' It also discloses the matching logic (normalised track name, primary artist, distinct album IDs), which helps the agent anticipate behavior. It does not mention pagination or performance characteristics, but for a read-only analysis tool this is adequate.

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 a single dense sentence followed by 'Read-only,' with zero filler. The core action and criteria are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 matching rule, scope, and safety profile (read-only), which is sufficient for basic invocation. It does not describe the return structure, but the response_format parameter partially covers output expectations, and this is not a high-risk tool. Slight gap: no mention of how it relates to similar duplicate-saved-track tools.

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 schema already documents all three parameters (scan_cap, max_results, response_format) with descriptions and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline.

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 ('Find'), a precise resource ('songs you saved more than once from different albums'), and exact matching criteria ('same normalised track name + primary artist, distinct album IDs'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic duplicate-finding tools and defines the operation unambiguously.

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 clearly implies the tool is for detecting saved-track duplicates across different albums, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over siblings like find_duplicate_saved_tracks or find_duplicates_in_playlist. There is no when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives.

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