statsfm_charts_users

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The wording 'Rank' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is accurate. Yet the description does not disclose potential limitations (e.g., requiring the user to have friends) or any special behaviors, leaving it neutral.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It immediately conveys the action and target, fitting the tool's simple nature perfectly.

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 straightforward read-only tool with a fully described schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand what it does. It lacks explicit output details, but no output schema is expected, and the simplicity of the operation keeps it complete enough.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions (user_id, limit, max_results, response_format). The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the value stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 verb 'Rank' and the specific resource 'a stats.fm user's friends by total stream count (people chart)'. It is distinct from sibling tools like statsfm_charts_artists, statsfm_charts_albums, and statsfm_charts_tracks by explicitly focusing on friends.

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 makes its purpose obvious, allowing an agent to infer when to use it (e.g., when needing a friends' ranking). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusion criteria, so it stops short of the highest guidance.

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