statsfm_album_date_stats

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, read-only behavior, auth requirements, or rate limits. The description simply says 'Stream totals' without explicitly stating that the operation is read-only or non-destructive. It fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic function.

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 a single, concise sentence that conveys the essential purpose without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action ('Stream totals') and the resource ('one album'), followed by the temporal scope. There is no unnecessary verbosity, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 is adequate for a simple, well-parameterized query tool. It covers the core purpose and resource, and the schema fully documents parameters. However, it omits details about the response structure or how the optional date window and response_format affect the output. Since the tool has no output schema, a bit more context about return value shape would be helpful, but the description is still sufficient for expected usage.

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% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about parameters; it relies entirely on the schema descriptions. It does not clarify how the date window interacts with the 'after' and 'before' parameters or what 'stream totals' precisely includes, but the high schema coverage meets the baseline.

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 the tool's purpose: retrieving stream totals for a specific album within a date window. It identifies the resource (album), the metric (stream totals), and the temporal constraint (date window), which is sufficient for an agent to distinguish it from related tools like statsfm_album_stats or statsfm_artist_date_stats.

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 does not explicitly indicate when to use this tool over alternatives. It provides no context such as 'use this when you need date-filtered album stats' or comparisons to similar tools. While the date window parameters imply a temporal filter, the absence of any alternative differentiation leaves usage guidance largely implicit.

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