top_genre_census

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the quota (3× GET /me/top/artists + 1× GET /artists?ids=), which is important operational context, and explains the weighting/resolution logic. It stops short of describing return shape or side-effect profile, but for a read/computation tool this is strong disclosure.

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 sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, implementation details and quota are compactly placed in a parenthetical, and every sentence 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 3 all-optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides key context: source data, weighting method, resolution endpoint, default window size, and API quota. The only minor gap is not making explicit what the returned census looks like beyond the response_format enum, but the schema covers that partially.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description mentions the default 40 artists per window, which mirrors the limit parameter description and adds no new meaning; it also does not clarify max_results or response_format beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Build') and resource ('weighted genre census from your top artists'), with concrete details about rank weighting across three time windows and genre resolution via the batch /artists endpoint. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling genre-related tools like get_artist_genres or library_genre_report.

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 gives clear context: the tool is for constructing a weighted genre census based on a user's top artists, with rank weighting and three windows. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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