artist_velocity_report

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs 2× GET /me/top/artists, which is useful quota/cost transparency. However, it does not explain whether this is read-only, what the output shape will be, how pagination or max_results interacts with the two windows, or any errors/edge cases (e.g., empty history, ties in ranking).

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 description is concise, one sentence plus a quota note. The core function is front-loaded, and the quota information is useful and not redundant with the schema. It could arguably include a bit more detail on output behavior, but the sentence itself is efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only analytics tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is decent but incomplete. It tells the agent what it computes and the quota cost, but it does not describe the output structure, how the classification labels map to output values, or how limit/max_results affect the two windows. Given the large sibling set of analytics tools, more contextual guidance would help.

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 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema and does not clarify how limit and max_results apply across the two rank windows (short_term vs long_term). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameters but the description contributes little extra semantic value.

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 clearly specifies what the tool does: 'Classify each top artist’s momentum by comparing short_term and long_term ranks' and names the classification labels. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling analytics tools like top_artist_ranking_delta or taste_shift_report, which may also involve rank comparisons, so differentiation is incomplete.

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?

The description implies the tool is for momentum analysis of top artists, which gives some usage context. It does not state when to prefer this over similar analytics tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites (e.g., that a user must have listening history or that short/long term data must exist). No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given.

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