song_live_releases

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It openly explains the matching mechanism (setlist cache + recording date parsed from title), limitations (excerpt compilations edge case), and the coverage note for unmatched releases, giving users an accurate expectation of behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the main purpose, then organized into 'How it works,' prerequisites, Args list, and Returns. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return value (by_incarnation groupings plus coverage note) and gives necessary context for decision-making. Prerequisites, edge cases, and parameter details are all covered, making the description complete for usage.

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 has 0% coverage, but description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: song with example, artist_mbid with default, match with allowed values and definitions. This adds complete meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

First sentence states a specific action (Find official live releases) and a specific resource (captured a given song), plus grouping by incarnation. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like song_box_sets and song_performance_history.

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?

Provides clear context: requires both caches to be refreshed first, and explains the matching logic and edge cases. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for when-not-to-use, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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