get_similar_songs

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. 'Read' indicates a non-destructive operation, which is useful. But it does not disclose error behavior, rate limits, pagination details beyond the word 'page', or whether similar songs are based on current trends vs permanent attributes. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It states the verb, resource, and target input efficiently, making it easy to scan.

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 simple read tool with a full input schema and output schema, this description is adequate for invocation. It lacks nuance like sort order, empty-result behavior, or special cases, but these are not critical for basic use. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 (song_id, page, page_size). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own explanations, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Read' with resource 'a page of songs similar to one NetEase song', clearly distinguishing from search/recommendation tools by focusing on song similarity. It immediately tells the agent what the tool does and what its input is.

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?

Implied usage is clear: use when needing songs similar to a specific NetEase song. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusion of search or recommendation tools. The guidance is minimal but not misleading.

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