binge_detector_report

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose useful behavioral traits beyond the schema—the data source ('GET /me/player/recently-played cursor walk'), the quota implication, and output sorting ('sorted by intensity'). However, it never states the key limitation that 'recently-played' only covers a finite recent window, which could mislead an agent into thinking counts are all-time.

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 sentences, roughly 30 words, with the core behavior front-loaded and the quota/data-source note placed second. Every clause carries information; zero 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?

For a simple 3-optional-param tool with a well-documented schema, the description covers the main behavior, output characteristics, and data source. But with no output schema and no annotations, the unstated recently-played window limitation and the absence of any guidance competing with the many similar report siblings leave meaningful gaps for an agent.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear schema description (defaults, max, enum meanings). The description's '(default ≥5 plays)' only rephrases the schema's threshold default and adds no new parameter semantics. The 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Flag') with a clear resource ('artists whose recently-played counts exceed a play threshold'), plus concrete output detail ('span and track coverage, sorted by intensity'). It is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_recently_played (raw feed), listening_streaks (consecutive plays), and top_artists_by_range (ranked top lists).

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 purpose statement implies when to use it (detecting binge-listening artists), and the quota note gives operational context, but no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use guidance is given. With dozens of overlapping listening-analysis siblings (listening_report, taste_shift_report, weekly_rotation_report), explicit routing would have helped.

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