get_new_songs

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Read' and 'page', which implies a non-mutating operation, but it does not disclose pagination defaults, output format, ordering, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or required authentication.

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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently.

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?

Given the simple paginated read tool, an output schema is present, and all parameters are fully documented in the schema, the description covers the core purpose. Minor gaps remain about recommendation behavior, but the overall context is adequate.

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 documented (area, page, page_size). The description adds minimal semantic value beyond 'by region' and 'page', 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 clearly states the verb ('Read'), the resource ('page of recommended new songs'), and the scope ('by region'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_recommendations or get_rankings by emphasizing 'new' songs and region-based filtering.

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 context is clear: use this tool to read region-specific new song recommendations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the regional focus implies differentiation from broader recommendation tools.

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