dropped_artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the precise eligibility filter, the silence window, and the ranking order. It does not describe the response shape, but an output schema exists, so that is not a significant gap.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the user-facing concept, then states the exact thresholds and ordering. There is no filler, no repetition of schema defaults, and every clause 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 read-only reporting tool with three simple parameters and an output schema, the description supplies the essential selection logic, threshold definitions, and sort order. The only minor omission is explicit treatment of limit, but its name and default make it largely self-explanatory.

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 description meaningfully defines min_plays and silent_since_months beyond the bare schema titles, and the ranking sentence clarifies output ordering. However, limit is not described at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries most but not all of the parameter-explanation burden.

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?

Clearly identifies the returned set: artists with at least min_plays total plays and none in the last silent_since_months, ranked by historical play count. This is readily distinguishable from siblings like get_top_artists or reDiscover_tracks. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'returns' or 'gets' and does not name a sibling, so it stops 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?

Implies a discovery/reporting use case ('Artists you used to play a lot but have gone quiet on') and the threshold parameters give the agent control. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool names, leaving the agent to infer which circumstance calls for this tool.

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