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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful context that the chart is derived from station plays and returns ranked entries with page links, but doesn't discuss freshness, caching, or empty-result 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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the resource and scope, then the return shape. No filler.

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?

With a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, dimensions, and rough return shape sufficiently. It lacks explicit alternative guidance and edge-case behavior, but nothing critical for invoking the tool correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (kind, limit, window, country) are already documented in the schema, including enums and the country pattern. The description echoes the options but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') and resource ('live song or artist chart') with explicit scope dimensions (24h/7d, worldwide or country). The description makes clear this is a computed chart from station plays, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_station or radio_guide_now.

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?

Implies usage context ('counted from what stations played') but doesn't explicitly say when to choose this over radio_guide_now or get_station, nor state any exclusions. Usage is inferable from the resource name rather than stated.

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