featuring_density_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a valuable and non-obvious behavioral disclosure about side effects. It also hints at sorted output via 'examples ranked'. It does not describe pagination or potential API-call volume, but the read-only guarantee covers the main safety concern.

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 carry the core action, scope, output behavior, and safety guarantee with zero fluff. The main outcome and the read-only note are front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description conveys enough about returns ('how many' plus 'examples ranked') for an agent to invoke and interpret basic results. The parameter schema covers the remaining configuration details. It could be more explicit about the exact returned fields or whether a percentage is included, but it is adequate for a simple report tool.

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 the schema already documents scan_cap, max_results, and response_format with defaults, constraints, and enum meanings. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Measure') and a precise resource ('your saved track titles') with a well-defined criterion ('feat." / "featuring" marker'). It also signals the output nature ('examples ranked') and sets it apart from other report tools by naming the exact metric. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like listening_report or library_coverage_report.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when the user wants a count/density of saved tracks with feature markers and ranked examples. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the niche purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to route correctly.

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