top_artists_by_range

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It does disclose an important behavioral trait: 'Quota: up to 3× GET /me/top/artists,' which tells the agent the tool may make multiple network calls and consume quota. It does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, or side effects, but for a read-only listing tool the quota note provides useful transparency.

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 two short sentences with no redundant phrasing. Key output concept and quota disclosure are front-loaded. The quota sentence is dense but 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?

The tool is moderately complex with 3 optional params, 2 enums, and no output schema, and the description covers purpose and cost but not output shape beyond 'rank deltas' or scenario guidance. The response_format parameter in the schema partially covers return expectations. Overall it is adequate but relies on the schema and sibling names to fill in the full picture.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with descriptions and enums, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect context ('time window' maps to time_range) and no additional parameter semantics. It does not compensate for anything the schema lacks.

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 specifies a concrete deliverable: 'Top artists for each time window with rank deltas (short vs long)'. It clearly identifies the resource and the analytical output, and the quota note grounds it as an API-backed listing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar siblings like top_artist_ranking_delta, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'for each time window with rank deltas' implies the tool is meant for comparing ranking shifts over short vs long windows, and the quota note signals cost when choosing it. It does not state when to prefer it over get_top_artists, top_artist_leaderboard, or top_artist_ranking_delta, nor does it give exclusion criteria. This is implied guidance, not explicit routing.

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