followed_playlists_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the underlying endpoint ('GET /me/playlists'), that the operation is paged, and the quota level ( green), which is genuinely useful. However, it never explicitly states that the operation is read-only and side-effect-free, nor does it describe pagination behavior implications for max_results. Partial but meaningful disclosure.

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 terse sentences: the first front-loads the purpose with concrete output dimensions, and the second adds a quota/endpoint note. Zero filler, every clause earns its place, and the most important information (what the tool produces) appears first.

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 inventory tool the description is adequate, but gaps remain: no output schema exists, so the meaning of 'collab' (collaborative status?) and how totals are structured are left to inference; and there is no note on how response_format interacts with the report style. The fully documented parameter schema and simple read-only nature keep this from being a 2, but the missing output-shape expectations prevent a 4.

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%r, so the schema already documents all three parameters (max_results, only_followed, response_format) with defaults and enums. The description's mention of the report dimensions (counts, collab, public, follower totals) gives helpful context for interpreting only_followed, but it adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. 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 states a specific deliverable ('Inventory of followed vs owned playlists') and enumerates the metrics produced ('counts, collab, public, follower totals'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_playlists (raw list) and get_playlist_followers (followers of one playlist). It could earn a 5 with a stronger action verb, but 'Inventory' plus the metric list is sufficiently clear and specific.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_playlists, get_playlist_followers, or playlist_collaboration_report. Given the enormous sibling list (170+ tools), the absence of any selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative names leaves the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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