get_top_artists

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

Annotations already mark this read-only and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the ranking is computed from listening history, and Spotify removed live popularity/trending signals in 2026, explaining why results may look stale or unexpected. This goes beyond what annotations convey.

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 concise sentences accomplish a lot: they define the resource, the time-window semantics, the ranking basis, and a critical exclusion. No filler, and the core purpose appears first.

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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool returns, how the time window works, and what it is not. The output schema handles return-value details, and annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema contains no parameter descriptions, but the description gives meaningful semantics for time_range (short_term=~4 weeks, medium_term=~6 months, long_term=~1 year). Limit and offset are left to inference, but they are conventional pagination parameters with defaults already in the schema, so the key decision-critical parameter is covered.

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?

States clearly that this returns the user's most-played artists by listening affinity over a time window, which is a specific verb+resource and distinct from generic artist lookup or trending. Differentiates itself from live popularity signals, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: for personalized affinity rankings over defined time windows. Also provides a when-not-to-use signal by explicitly saying it is not a live popularity/trending tool. It does not name alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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