Discovery status

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, but the description goes further by naming the exact contents returned (playlist, last run, pool, pending finds, learned labels, artists in no lane). With no output schema present, that return-content disclosure is the main source of behavioral information. Minor redundancy in repeating 'Read-only:' is not a contradiction.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the read-only marker, then a dense but organized enumeration of returned data. Every clause carries information about the response and nothing is wasted.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields is essential and is done well. However, in a workflow of seven sibling discovery tools, the definition gives no cue about when status should be called versus discovery_review or verify_tracks, and it never acknowledges the optional lane scoping that the schema exposes.

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% and the single optional 'lane' parameter is documented in the schema ('Just this lane.'). The description never mentions lane filtering at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 enumerates concretely what a status read returns: today's playlist, each lane's last run, pool, pending finds, learned labels, and core artists in no lane. That is a specific, inspectable resource picture rather than a restatement of the title. It stops short of differentiating itself from sibling reads like discovery_review, so it is clear but not sibling-aware.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as discovery_review or verify_tracks. The 'Read-only:' prefix only implies safe inspection; an agent must infer that this is the overview call to make before or between lane operations.

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