statsfm_track_date_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or that it has no side effects. While a stats tool likely implies non-mutating behavior, this is not stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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, compact sentence that conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It clearly states the subject (one track) and the scope (date window). There is no fluff or redundant information, making it highly efficient.

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?

The description provides enough context to understand the primary function, especially with the schema detailing parameters like after, before, and response_format. It does not explicitly describe the output structure, but the response_format parameter hints at presentation options. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a simple stats query, though a brief note on output granularity would enhance clarity.

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, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameters, but it does align with the schema by mentioning a 'track' and 'date window'. Since the schema is already thorough, no additional parameter explanation is necessary.

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 it provides stream totals for a single track over a date range, which aligns with the tool name. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', making it slightly ambiguous as a command. It effectively distinguishes itself from similar tools by emphasizing the date-window aspect.

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 alternatives such as statsfm_track_stats or statsfm_artist_date_stats. The description does not mention any conditions or scenarios that would make this tool preferable. Without explicit usage instructions, the agent must infer context from the tool name alone.

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