saved_vs_playlist_coverage

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 disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which signals no mutation, and it describes the output as a report with coverage ratio. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the bare tool name and schema.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the read-only safety note is a useful separate clarification. Every word 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 report tool with four well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description states the input context and expected output clearly. It could add the exact coverage-ratio formula or clarify the default response style, but the combination of description and schema gives an agent enough to call the tool correctly.

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 are well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but because the schema already handles that burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Report') and names the exact resource and scope: saved tracks compared against owned/followed playlists, plus a coverage ratio. It clearly conveys what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar sibling tools like library_coverage_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 description gives a clear functional context—finding saved tracks absent from playlists—but it does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool references, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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