get_decades

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., return format, sorting, or any side effects). Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate as the description adds marginal value beyond that.

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 is perfectly concise and earns its place.

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-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It could mention the output format or sorting order, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic function. The presence of readOnlyHint reduces the need for extensive behavioral details.

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% for the single 'limit' parameter, which already includes a default value and brief description. The tool description does not add any additional information about the parameter, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 'Get' and the resource 'decades available in the music library', making the purpose obvious. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_years', which could cause confusion in selection, though the distinct resource name provides implicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_years' is provided. The description simply states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context without any exclusions or recommendations.

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