get_new_singles

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the ordering mechanism ('ordered by AOTY's release feed') and pagination intent ('page: One-based page number for older singles'), but it does not mention result count, recency window, pagination size, or read-only safety.

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 minimal and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action, and the Args section adds only relevant parameter context. There is no filler or redundant restatement 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 simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core action, ordering, and pagination semantics. It lacks sibling differentiation and recency window details, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema reduce the burden on the description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics to the page parameter by explaining it is one-based and used for older singles, which goes beyond the schema's type and default. It does not mention bounds or behavior when page is omitted, but the schema default covers that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List recently released singles', and adds the ordering source, 'AOTY's release feed'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_popular_singles through 'recently released' and 'release feed', though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_new_releases or get_popular_singles. The page argument implies that higher pages fetch older singles, but there is no clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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