unplayable_saved_check

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is meaningful because no annotations are present. It also clarifies that the tool identifies unplayable tracks and explains why. However, it does not describe output behavior, pagination, or edge cases such as an empty library or partial scans.

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 sentence that front-loads the action, resource, criteria, and safety profile. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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 read-only audit tool with three optional and well-documented parameters, the description covers the core purpose, the exact detection logic, and the read-only guarantee. It lacks a hint about the output structure, though the response_format parameter partially covers that, and it could benefit from naming related 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%, with each parameter already having a description, defaults, and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so 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 uses a specific verb ('Audit'), a clear resource ('your saved library'), and a precise criterion ('is_playable false or a restrictions block'). It also states the tool will 'show why', which distinguishes it from generic library retrieval or cleanup tools.

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 phrasing clearly implies this is for reviewing saved tracks that the API considers unplayable, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives such as dead_library_finder or remove_unavailable_playlist_items. No exclusions or routing guidance are provided.

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