most_replayed

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the data source, deduplication behavior, local computation approach, and a green quota signal (1-2 reads, local compute), which conveys a lightweight read operation. Minor gaps remain around exact window definition and output shape, but the response_format parameter partially covers output expectations.

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?

The description is two dense sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core result, then adds sibling relation and quota context efficiently. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only aggregate with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers data source, computation, dedup, quota, and the relationship to listening_report. It could be more explicit about the exact recent-window duration, but given the pages parameter and the well-defined response_format, this is generally complete.

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 parameters limit, pages, and response_format are already well-documented. The description adds only context about 'recent window,' loosely mapping to pages, and deduping, which affects result interpretation, but doesn't add meaningful per-parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 states it returns most-replayed tracks in a recent window, defining them as per-track play counts from recently-played with deduping. It also names listening_report as a related sibling, so an agent can distinguish this tool from other listening-stat tools without opening schemas.

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 gives clear context: it complements the window-based listening_report, and explicitly says 'on repeat' is computed locally from recently-played data. An agent can infer when to choose this tool, though it doesn't enumerate explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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