year_explorer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the operational quota ('2 capped library walks + 1 /search call') and clarifies the behavior of combining saved items with catalog matches. The term 'view' implies a read-only operation, though an explicit 'does not modify data' statement would strengthen it.

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 well-structured sentences: the first front-loads the core purpose and data sources, and the second states the quota. There is no redundant or vague filler, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 tool with six parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a solid high-level picture: purpose, data sources, and quota. The schema covers parameter semantics, so nothing critical is missing for selection or invocation, though a brief note on when not to use it would make it fully complete.

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?

All six parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about caps and search usage that relates to the parameters, but it does not introduce meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies the tool's function: a year-based time-machine view combining saved albums/tracks with catalog matches. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the exact data sources and the year: search mechanism, so an agent can separate it from generic search or saved-library 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 description provides enough detail to infer the tool is for exploring a specific release year across both library and catalog. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like saved_albums_by_year or search, nor does it mention exclusions or preferred contexts.

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