following_analytics

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

The description discloses that the tool performs batch enrichment via /artists?ids= and notes the quota impact with a green indicator. This is valuable behavioral context about how the quota is consumed. Without annotations, it carries the burden of transparency; it could further mention that it aggregates data but doesn't persist anything, yet the batch/rollup behavior is sufficiently disclosed.

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, both informative: the first defines the function, the second gives quota behavior. It front-loads the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 an analytics tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the mechanism, quota, and purpose. It could be slightly more complete by mentioning default grouping or output format behavior, but optional parameters lower the burden.

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 75% with 4 parameters. The description adds meaning by clarifying the rollup nature and the enrichment mechanism, linking the parameters to the analytics concept. It doesn't repeat parameter details but the schema already documents them; the description's main value is the overall conceptual model.

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 clear verb (analytics over followed artists) and resource (genre/popularity rollups). It explains the data source (followed artists + /artists?ids= enrichment), which helps distinguish it from raw get_followed_artists or get_me. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like followed_playlists_audit or library_genre_report, so it is clear but not fully distinct.

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 use case: run analytics over followed artists rather than a simple list. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_followed_artists or genre_trends_over_time, and there are no exclusions. The quota note gives some operational context but doesn't provide selection guidance.

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