following_analytics

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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description carries real behavioral weight: it discloses the tag-sidecar data source, that popularity/followers are structurally unavailable (Spotify API change), and that a GET /me/following quota applies. These are non-obvious constraints an agent cannot infer from the schema. It stops short of 5 only because it doesn't say what happens when the sidecar is empty or stale.

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 tightly packed sentences with the data-source caveat front-loaded before the quota note. No filler, though the 'Quota: GET /me/following' fragment is cryptic enough that its brevity borders on ambiguity.

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 rollup with no output schema, the description covers the data-source and availability caveats but never indicates the shape or grouping of results, nor how top_n interacts with max_results. Adequate but with a noticeable gap for an analytics 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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including the 'unavailable' behavior for popularity/followers. The description's note about unavailable fields is largely redundant with the enum description, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific resource and operation ('followed-artist rollups') plus the data source ('tag sidecar'), which is enough to distinguish it from get_followed_artists/check_following_artists. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing against the many neighboring following/export tools. The quota note hints at cost but never tells the agent when this rollup is the right call versus get_followed_artists or export_followed_artists.

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