taste_obsession_ladder

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does add a useful safety profile: 'Read-only, no auth.' This is consistent with the schema's 'public profile, no auth needed' note. However, it does not disclose what an 'exposure tier' is, how pagination behaves, what data source backs the tool, or how output varies by response format — gaps that matter for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the core function is front-loaded, and the safety note is appended. Every word earns its place. Slightly more detail would improve utility, but as written it is efficient and scannable.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate — but it does not explain the return structure, the meaning of exposure tiers, or how 'ladder' output differs from statsfm_top_artists. For an analytics tool with 4 parameters and no structured return documentation, the agent is left guessing at output shape and 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (range, max_results, statsfm_user, response_format) are already self-documented with defaults, enums, and constraints. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable given the baseline-3 standard for high coverage, but it also doesn't reinforce which parameters matter most.

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 function: artists ranked by stream share with an exposure tier. It names the resource (artists), the ranking metric (stream share), and a distinguishing output concept (exposure tier), which separates it from generic profile tools. However, it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like statsfm_top_artists, which could overlap in agent routing.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. With roughly 200 sibling tools including many taste_* and statsfm_* analytics tools, the agent gets no help choosing this over statsfm_top_artists, statsfm_artist_affinity, or taste_profile. The only contextual hint is the implicit ranking/exposure-tier framing.

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