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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does add useful context by disclosing the per-call credit cost, $0.01 payment via x402/MPP, and that no API key is needed. However, it omits any return behavior, side effects, or read-only guarantees.

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 text is short, but the first sentence is pure repetition of the title and 'Group: Playlists' adds no new information. The billing sentence earns its place, but the description is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is far too thin: it never clarifies endpoint behavior, what 'items' includes, or how to construct a valid call. An autonomous agent would have to rely on guessing or on external knowledge.

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 0% and the description names none of the three parameters. An agent cannot learn from the description how limit, offset, or playlistId should be used beyond the bare titles and examples already in the 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?

The description opens by restating the title verbatim ('v2/Playlist details & items') and adds only grouping/billing information. It never states an explicit verb or explains what 'details & items' actually returns, so it does not meaningfully distinguish this from get_v1_1_playlist or get_v1_1_playlist_tracks.

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 statement of when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_v1_1_playlist or get_v2_album_detailsAndTracks. The billing note tells the agent how to pay but not which operation fits a given task.

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