playlist_intersection

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses read-only behavior, the N GETs quota, and the output's key property (which source playlists each common track appears in). It does not cover auth or error behavior, but for a read-only reporting tool, the essential safety and scope traits are well disclosed.

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 dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the quota and read-only clarifications each earn their place without bloating the description.

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?

The description covers the essential output, the safety profile (read-only), and a pointer to commit variants. The main gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from the similarly named sibling 'playlist_intersect', which could create ambiguity despite the otherwise complete coverage.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning; it describes the tool's output rather than any nuance about max_results, response_format, or how playlist_ids are processed.

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 ('Report') and resource ('tracks present in ALL of 2–10 playlists'), defines the result scope ('including which of the source playlists each common track appears in'), and explicitly labels itself as 'read-only intersection analysis'. This is specific enough to separate it from generic report tools and many playlist siblings.

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?

It clearly frames the tool as the read-only analysis path and points commit variants to 'the set-op plan tools', giving an explicit when-not. However, it does not name the very close sibling 'playlist_intersect', so an agent may still be unsure which of the two similarly named tools to choose.

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