playlist_staleness_score

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: 'Read-only' and 'Quota: 🟢 1–2 GETs' explicitly disclose the safety profile and API cost, the key behavioral facts an agent needs before invoking. It does not, however, disclose whether the check scans the entire playlist or a capped subset (max_results hints at a limit), nor edge-case behavior on empty playlists.

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, front-loaded sentences: core purpose and outputs first, then safety and cost. Every clause earns its place, and the 🟢 emoji compactly conveys low cost with zero filler.

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 six-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, quota, and names the key output concepts (grade, refresh suggestions). Missing are an explicit return-shape hint, a clear single- vs multi-playlist distinction from playlist_staleness_report, and edge-case expectations for empty or very large playlists.

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 all six parameters are already documented; baseline 3 applies. The description adds modest context by grounding threshold_days in the fresh/aging/stale/fossil taxonomy and clarifying which added_at statistic is used (most-recent / median), but adds no syntax or default details 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Local staleness check') and enumerates exact computed outputs: days since most-recent/median added_at, a four-bucket fresh/aging/stale/fossil grade, and refresh suggestions. The 'Local' qualifier distinguishes it from the broader playlist_staleness_report sibling without needing to open either schema.

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 'Local' qualifier and 'Read-only' tag imply a single-playlist, safe read operation, but no alternative tool is named and no when-to-use / when-not-to-use condition is given. With closely related siblings like playlist_staleness_report, playlist_health_check, and get_playlist_added_dates, the agent must infer routing.

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