statsfm_exposure_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does a creditable job: it discloses the safety profile ('Read-only, no auth'), the evidence inputs ('lifetime + recent counts'), and the output taxonomy (the five tiers). It stops short of explaining tier semantics or behavior for unknown subjects or invalid users, but the core behavioral traits an agent needs are disclosed.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core question, the evidence basis, and the safety/auth profile. The most decision-relevant fact (what the tool classifies) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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 classification tool with 4 params and no output schema, the description covers purpose, evidence basis, safety, and auth. The main gaps are the lack of sibling differentiation and no detail on what 'concise' vs 'detailed' vs 'json' responses contain — though the schema's enum descriptions partially cover the latter. Overall sufficient for an agent to call it 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 schema already documents all four parameters, including enum options for subject_type and response_format. The description adds the exposure-ladder framing and evidence basis, but it adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. With full schema coverage, the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear purpose: it classifies a subject into one of five exposure tiers (unheard/sampled/explored/established/favorite) and specifies the evidence basis (lifetime + recent counts). The resource and output are concrete and specific. However, it doesn't differentiate from the nearly identically named sibling `exposure_check`, so an agent must infer the distinction from the statsfm_ prefix and tool ordering.

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 the usage context — checking a subject's engagement level on a statsfm user profile — but never explicitly states when to reach for this tool versus similar siblings like `exposure_check`, `statsfm_artist_affinity`, or `taste_obsession_ladder`. No alternatives are named and no exclusions are given, which is a genuine gap given the large, overlapping sibling set.

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