followed_playlists_audit

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false, so the description must carry behavioral weight. It does add one useful operational fact — the quota applies to the paged GET /me/playlists endpoint — which hints at rate-limit and pagination costs. It says nothing about whether results are cached, how large the fetch can be, or how long it takes.

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 compact clauses with no filler, and the core inventory content is front-loaded before the quota note. The telegraphic list style ('counts, collab, public, follower totals') is dense but readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden; it does list the reported dimensions, which is helpful. However it leaves the shape of the audit output, whether it covers owned playlists in the same call, and the effect of the response_format parameter unstated.

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%, so max_results, only_followed, and response_format are fully documented in the schema; the description adds essentially nothing parameter-specific. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 names a specific resource (followed vs owned playlists) and enumerates what the audit reports: counts, collaborator status, public/private, and follower totals. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_playlists and following_analytics, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_user_playlists, get_user_playlists_by_id, or following_analytics, all of which overlap on playlist surface area. The word 'audit' and the followed/owned comparison imply a reporting use case, but the agent must infer it.

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