statsfm_records_artists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic purpose and omits pagination behavior, response format, auth requirements, or that this is a read-only query. An agent has little signal on what to expect when calling it.

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 filler – efficient and easy to scan. It is slightly thin and could benefit from one additional sentence of context, but it earns its place.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thin. It doesn't explain what 'record-holding' means precisely, how limit interacts with max_results, or what the response looks like. An agent would have to inspect the schema and infer semantics.

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 coverage is 100% – all five parameters (limit, offset, user_id, max_results, response_format) are documented in the schema with defaults and formats. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. 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 clearly identifies the resource ('record-holding artists') and the owner (a stats.fm user), and adds examples of what qualifies ('longest streaks, top milestones'). It's distinguishable from siblings like statsfm_top_artists or statsfm_charts_artists, though it doesn't explicitly name the differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as statsfm_top_artists, statsfm_charts_artists, or statsfm_artist_stats. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context selecting this tool are given, leaving the agent to infer.

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