List Songs

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies the return format options (markdown/json), describes what fields are included in results (title, author, CCLI number, last scheduled date), and mentions error behavior ('Error: ...' if request fails). This enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without contradicting 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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter details and return information. It's appropriately sized for a 5-parameter tool with no output schema. However, the 'Args:' and 'Returns:' sections could be integrated more seamlessly, and some redundancy with the schema exists (e.g., repeating parameter descriptions).

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, rich annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, return values, and error handling. The main gap is the lack of usage guidelines, but annotations handle safety aspects well, and the parameter details are thorough. For a list operation, this is sufficient but not exemplary.

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 well-documented in the schema (e.g., 'Search songs by title' for query, range limits for limit). The description repeats some of this information (e.g., 'Search songs by title' for query, default values) but adds minimal extra semantics, such as clarifying that hidden=true means hidden songs and false means visible only. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and resource ('songs in the Planning Center Services song library'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other list tools in the sibling set (like pco_list_people, pco_list_groups, etc.), which would require mentioning the specific domain context of songs versus other Planning Center entities.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for when listing songs is appropriate, or how it differs from other song-related tools (though none appear in the sibling list). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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