statsfm_genre_artists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects or safety. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies data, or any other behavioral aspects. The phrase 'in the stats.fm catalog' hints at a lookup but does not explicitly state non-mutating behavior.

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, concise sentence that fully conveys the purpose without unnecessary words. It is perfectly sized for a simple lookup tool.

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?

While the schema is comprehensive and the description is clear, the lack of any context about output format, typical use cases, or relation to other statsfm tools makes it incomplete for an agent unfamiliar with the ecosystem. However, given the low complexity, a score of 3 (average) is fair.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters (genre, limit, offset, max_results, response_format). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the resource (artists) and the qualifier (tagged with a genre in the stats.fm catalog), which is specific enough to distinguish from other tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Retrieve', making the action slightly ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to similar statsfm tools such as statsfm_top_artists or get_artist_genres.

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