song_history

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

The description gives no indication of side effects, read-only nature, or any behavioral constraints. With no annotations to supplement, the agent has no basis to infer whether this is a safe query or if it might trigger mutations or external calls.

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 extremely brief, but it is a sentence fragment lacking a subject and verb, making it structurally incomplete. While conciseness is valued, the brevity here sacrifices clarity and does not form a coherent instruction.

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 tool's apparent purpose (listing a song's play history) and multiple parameters, the description is drastically incomplete. It omits the input requirement, output format, pagination (via 'limit'), and the effect of 'include_related', leaving an agent without essential context to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The description does not mention any of the three parameters ('song', 'limit', 'include_related'), and the schema itself lacks descriptions for them. The agent cannot infer what values are appropriate for 'limit' or the meaning of 'include_related', nor confirm that 'song' expects an exact title, ID, or other identifier.

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 'Every time a song has been played (most recent first).' is a fragment that fails to clearly state the tool's function. It does not explicitly say it retrieves a song's performance history, nor does it mention the required 'song' input or what output to expect. This is ambiguous and insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool compared to siblings like 'song_stats' or 'search_shows'. The description does not distinguish its unique role (e.g., historical list of performances) from alternatives, leaving the agent without criteria for selection.

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