track_release_origin

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the algorithmic approach (chronological walk across releases), the quota cost (paginated walk + batched lookups), and the nature of the output (earliest + re-appearances). This goes beyond the mere schema, though it omits edge cases like no match found or exact behavior of response_format variants.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the quota warning is neatly appended. It is efficient and well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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 moderate-complexity read-only lookup with no output schema, the description provides a solid high-level understanding: what it searches, how it scans, and what it reports. It relies on the response_format parameter to articulate output granularity. Minor gaps (e.g., behavior when no match is found, or handling of artist_id forms) are not critical given the parameter descriptions already cover input formats.

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%; all four parameters (artist_id, track_name, max_releases, response_format) are documented with meaningful descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional semantic nuance beyond what the property descriptions already provide, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('where a track first appeared'), then elaborates on the exact behavior: walks an artist's releases chronologically and reports the earliest album/single/compilation plus later re-appearances. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like track_album_bundle or find_canonical_track, which serve different lookup purposes.

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 conveys that this tool is used to trace origin and re-appearances within an artist's discography, and includes a quota warning indicating it's a heavy operation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer alternatives (e.g., track_album_bundle for a single release) or provide exclusion criteria. The usage context is implied but not formalized.

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