statsfm_artist_date_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Stream totals' implies aggregation but doesn't specify what the output looks like (raw count, per-day breakdown, total number of streams, etc.). It doesn't mention pagination, response format, or any side effects. Since it's a read operation, the lack of a readOnlyHint annotation isn't the tool's fault, but the description doesn't compensate by clarifying it's a non-mutating query.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, achieving efficiency. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification, leaving out critical details. It earns a 4 for conciseness but loses points because the brevity compromises clarity about the tool's exact behavior.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description must explain return values and aggregation behavior. It doesn't mention whether it returns a single total, per-day breakdown, or average streams. The response_format parameter suggests different output styles, but the description doesn't explain what each yields. For a stats tool with multiple parameters, this is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about the result shape.

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 schema fully documents all six parameters including before/after timestamps, limit, and response_format. The description adds the phrase 'within a date window' which loosely maps to before/after, but provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema already conveys. Since the schema is comprehensive, the description adds minimal value, and 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 states a specific verb ('Stream totals') and resource ('one artist') within a date window, making the core action clear. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like statsfm_track_date_stats or statsfm_album_date_stats; the agent must infer that this is specifically for artist-level aggregation. It's more specific than a generic 'get stats' but lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer this over other date-stats tools (track, album) or other artist stats tools. The context is implied by the name but not explicitly stated, leaving the agent to guess based on tool name alone.

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