playlist_staleness_score

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two important behavioral traits: 'Read-only' and 'Quota: 🟢 1–2 GETs.' This goes beyond the schema and gives an agent confidence about side effects and cost, though it could say more about edge cases like empty playlists or missing added_at 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?

The description is two compact sentences with zero filler: the operation is front-loaded, the outputs are enumerated, and the read-only/quota caveats are stated at the end. 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 read-only scoring tool with a fully documented schema, the description covers the output essentials and cost/safety profile. It is slightly incomplete only in not clarifying how this 'local' score relates to the sibling playlist_staleness_report tool.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds context about the core staleness concept (added_at, grades, refresh suggestions) but does not materially enrich the individual parameters beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Local staleness check' of a playlist, with concrete outputs (days since most-recent/median added_at, a grade, refresh suggestions). It is clear and self-contained, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling playlist_staleness_report.

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 word 'Local' and the read-only label imply this is a per-playlist check rather than a report, and the quota gives expected cost. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are named for comparison.

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