top_local

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: data is local history, not live popularity, and date-range filtering is supported. It does not cover rate limits or authentication, but those are less critical given the read-only annotation and output schema presence.

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, with the core functionality front-loaded and the key contextual caveat in the second sentence. No waste or redundancy.

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 ranking tool with an output schema, the description covers entities, metrics, date range, and local-vs-live scope. The main gap is exact parameter value formats, but the call shape is largely inferable and the output schema handles return documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does map entity to artists/tracks/albums, metric to play count or listening time, and start/end to date range. However, it does not specify exact accepted values for entity or metric, date format, or the limit parameter, leaving some inference required.

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 clearly states what the tool does: it ranks artists, tracks, or albums by play count or total listening time with optional date range filtering. It also differentiates itself by specifying 'YOUR local listening history, not a live popularity signal,' which separates it from sibling tools like get_top_artists and get_top_tracks.

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 usage context: use for local listening history, not live popularity data. It explicitly notes that Spotify removed live popularity endpoints, which prevents the agent from expecting a live signal. It does not name alternative siblings, but the exclusion is strong enough to guide selection.

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