statsfm_forgotten_favorites

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the two most important behavioral facts: the operation is read-only and requires no auth. It does not, however, disclose what 'recent' means as a time window, what happens for an invalid user ID, or whether results paginate. These are meaningful behaviors left to inference.

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 selection concept, the ranking criterion, and the safety profile. Fully front-loaded with the core definition first, and zero filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 analytics tool, the combination is quite complete: all 4 parameters are documented in the schema, response_format covers return style, and the description states the concept and safety profile. Minor gaps remain — no output schema means the precise return shape is unspecified, and the 'recent plays' lookback window is undefined — but these are secondary for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3 and the schema already documents all four parameters well (top_limit scan scope, max_results defaults, user ID format, response_format modes). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so no credit above baseline is warranted.

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 defines the tool's concept: high-lifetime tracks with zero recent plays, ranked by lifetime streams. The selection criteria and ordering are specific enough for an agent to understand what it returns. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool literally named 'forgotten_favorites' or the similar 'taste_forgotten_bangers', so it misses the top tier.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus its close siblings 'forgotten_favorites' and 'taste_forgotten_bangers'. The 'Read-only, no auth' note is a constraint, not a selection heuristic. With roughly 300 siblings and at least two tools addressing the same 'forgotten favorites' concept, an agent has no basis for choosing among them.

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