get_recently_played

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a real behavioral constraint: the endpoint rejects limits above 10 and defaults to 10. The note that Apple Music returns containers rather than tracks is genuinely useful context for interpreting results. It stops short of mentioning auth/user-token requirements or ordering of results.

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 first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the constraint note follows logically. The default value is stated twice (in prose and again in the args block), a minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shapes need not be explained, and the container-versus-track note adds the one behavioral wrinkle an agent would otherwise get wrong. For a single read-only parameter tool, this is essentially complete.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it gives the valid range (1–10), the default (10), and the reason for the cap (the endpoint rejects anything above 10). Nothing about the single parameter is left ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and a well-defined resource ('recently played albums, playlists, and stations'), which is inherently distinct from the library-oriented siblings (get_library_albums, get_library_songs). It does not explicitly name an alternative or scope boundary, but the qualifier 'recently played' does the disambiguating work on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for playback history rather than library contents. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_library_* or search_catalog, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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