Chord of the day

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and open-world. The description adds useful behavior context: the result is specifically today's chord and matches external social feed posts, implying a dynamic, date-dependent selection. It does not fully describe return payloads, but the input schema already covers the format parameter.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core behavior is stated first, and the second sentence adds practical use context. The mention of social feeds is folded into the first sentence efficiently rather than as a separate addendum.

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, zero-required-parameter tool with rich annotations and a self-explanatory optional format enum, the description and schema together are sufficient. Nothing essential about how or why to call it is missing.

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?

There is only one parameter, format, and schema description coverage is 100%. The schema already explains values, defaults, and when to choose text vs image, so the description need not add more. Baseline 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?

Description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Return today's Chord of the Day from Guitar Practice Routine App.' It also adds distinguishing context by tying the returned chord to the same one posted on Bluesky and Facebook, making it clearly distinct from sibling chord-chart lookup tools.

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 description frames the tool as useful for a 'practice prompt' or 'daily nudge,' which implies when to use it. However, it never explicitly contrasts it with get_chord_chart_by_name or get_chord_chart_by_id, nor states when those should be preferred.

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