weekly_rotation_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose the underlying API call ('GET /me/player/recently-played'), the cursor-walk quota behavior, ordering (oldest→newest), and the default item count. This is meaningful operational context beyond the tool's name, though it does not mention error behavior or auth requirements.

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 tight sentences carry the full definition. The first front-loads the core purpose and outputs; the second adds the quota and API detail. No filler, no redundant restating of the tool name, and every phrase adds information.

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 covers the source data, aggregation granularity, output dimensions, ordering, default limit, and API quota behavior. Given the schema documents parameter details and output format choices, this is nearly complete for an analysis tool. Minor gaps like timezone/day-boundary handling and explicit response shape do not critically block correct use.

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 the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds 'oldest→newest' and 'default 150 items,' but the default is also present in the schema. It does not materially expand meaning beyond the structured field descriptions.

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 action and resource: tracking day-by-day rotation from recently-played history, with concrete output dimensions (plays, unique tracks/artists, first-heard tracks). It is clear enough to distinguish from generic listening history tools, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling report tools like track_rotation_report or listening_week_in_time.

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 use case is implied: it is for day-by-day rotation analysis over recently-played history. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over similar report tools, and no exclusions or alternative routing. It is adequate but leaves the selection burden mostly on the agent.

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