taste_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The description mentions read-only and no auth, and lists the output concept (core artists, top genres, etc.). However, it doesn't disclose things like pagination limits, default range behavior, or what 'loyalty-vs-novelty' and 'day-parting' mean in output terms. Since annotations are absent, the description adds useful but not complete behavioral context.

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 sentences, info-dense: what the tool returns, auth/read-only status, and alias routing. Front-loaded with the most important facts. No waste.

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 snapshot tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description gives a clear picture of what will be returned and that no auth is needed. Missing only minor details like pagination limits or default range, but for an agent selecting and invoking this tool, it's nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description doesn't add extra parameter detail beyond mapping 'range' and 'response_format' conceptually. It mentions day-parting and loyalty-vs-novelty, which relates to the output but not to parameter semantics. With schema covering all params, this is an adequate baseline.

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 specific verb ('snapshot'), the resource ('stats.fm'), and the exact contents: core artists, top genres, loyalty-vs-novelty balance, day-parting. It also names the legacy alias and explicitly says it's read-only with no auth. This clearly distinguishes it from statsfm_taste_profile (canonical) and other statsfm tools.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Read-only, no auth' and notes it's a 'Legacy alias of statsfm_taste_profile — prefer the canonical name.' This tells the agent when to use it (read-only taste snapshot) and to prefer the canonical sibling, plus the legacy alias situation is transparent.

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