get_top_artists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it is a single factual phrase that adds nothing beyond the tool name. The word 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the schema documents parameters, but the description does not disclose output format behavior, pagination, or that it operates on the currently authorized user's history. Nearly nothing is communicated beyond what the name already implies.

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?

Six words in a single sentence, perfectly front-loaded with the action and resource. There is zero filler. It lost one point because the brevity crosses into under-specification — the sentence is clear but sparse for a tool with five optional parameters and overlapping siblings.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate, but it does not explain return values, response format variation, or how it differs from similar siblings like top_artists_by_range. An agent has enough to guess what the tool returns, but not enough to reliably choose it or interpret its output.

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%, with every parameter documented including defaults and constraints (limit 1–50 default 20, offset 0-based, time_range enum with duration meanings, response_format enum). Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a concrete resource ('the user's most-played artists'), so an agent can tell at a glance what data this returns. It is distinct from get_top_tracks (tracks vs. artists) and get_artist_top_tracks (tracks for one specific artist). However, it offers no distinction from the near-identically named sibling top_artists_by_range, so it loses the fifth point.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains overlapping tools such as top_artists_by_range, get_top_tracks, and listening_streaks, and the description gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or context about the user scope it operates on.

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