statsfm_charts_artists

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions 'movement indicators' but doesn't explain what they mean (e.g., rank changes over time), nor does it state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or handles invalid user_ids. The description is too brief to cover the behavioral context an agent needs for a data-retrieval tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It conveys the core purpose and a distinctive feature (movement indicators) efficiently. It earns every word.

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 tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, so the description should compensate by explaining return format, pagination behavior, and edge cases. It only vaguely mentions 'movement indicators' without defining them, and fails to describe what the response contains (e.g., list of artists, ranks, changes). This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's output or handle potential errors.

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 parameters (user_id, limit, offset, max_results, response_format) are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'movement indicators,' which relates to output rather than parameters. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully compensates.

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 returns an all-time chart of a user's top artists with movement indicators. It specifies the resource (artists) and the scope (all-time chart for a user), distinguishing it from sibling tools like statsfm_top_artists or statsfm_charts_albums. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies usage (for viewing all-time artist charts) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over similar tools like statsfm_top_artists or statsfm_charts_albums. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from the name. While not misleading, it lacks explicit decision criteria.

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