forgotten_favorites

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only, requires no auth, ranks results by lifetime streams, and filters for tracks with zero recent plays. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 written sentences: one defines the tool's function and ranking, the second covers read-only, auth, and alias status. There is no filler, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 lookup with fully described schema parameters, this description is nearly complete: it says what is returned, how results are ranked, that no auth is needed, and how to route to the canonical tool. It doesn't enumerate output fields, but with no output schema the core semantics are still clear.

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. The description adds context about ranking and recency that relates to tool behavior, but doesn't enhance parameter-level semantics. Baseline 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 clearly defines what the tool returns: 'High-lifetime tracks with zero recent plays — favorites that fell off. Ranked by lifetime streams.' This is specific and distinguishes it from generic track query tools. It also identifies the canonical sibling, statsfm_forgotten_favorites, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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 states read-only and no-auth usage constraints, and explicitly warns that this is a 'Legacy alias of statsfm_forgotten_favorites — prefer the canonical name.' That tells an agent not to select this tool when the canonical sibling is available. It doesn't fully spell out all alternative conditions, but the alias guidance is strong enough.

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