get_playlist_added_dates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a GET operation with a green quota and that results are paged, which is meaningful safety and pagination context. However, it does not describe auth requirements, error behavior for private playlists, or how the response differs across the concise/detailed/json response_format values.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first front-loads the purpose and output fields, the second delivers quota and pagination context. Every sentence earns its place and the description is optimally sized for what it conveys.

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 4-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core data fields and the API endpoint, which is adequate. It lacks detail on what 'concise' vs 'detailed' prose output looks like for this specific tool, and does not address edge cases such as unavailable added_by data or permission failures. The core listing job is clear, but an agent has to guess at response behavior beyond the raw added_at/added_by fields.

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 defaults and enum meanings. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, only clarifying the output fields (added_at + added_by). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List when each track was added to a playlist (added_at + added_by)'. The parenthetical names the exact output fields, making the scope unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related sibling get_playlist_items, which uses the same underlying endpoint and could also surface added_at data.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this tool when it needs added_at/added_by information for playlist tracks. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives like get_playlist_items or get_playlist_snapshot. The quota note (🟢) hints it is a cheap read, but does not route the agent away from or toward any sibling.

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