Get Recent Listening

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a non-obvious limitation—this endpoint does not return play counts—and frames the response as recency-based, which is useful beyond the structured annotations. It does not go into response shape or pagination, but that is not a critical gap for a read-only list endpoint.

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 English and Chinese sections cover similar ground, including repeating the 'no play counts' caveat, which adds redundancy. The description is still relatively compact and front-loads the main purpose and limitation, but some sentences duplicate content.

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 two-parameter list tool with complete schema coverage and strong annotations, the description covers the key context: when to use it, what each kind returns, and a critical limitation. It does not describe the output schema, but none exists, and the simple list-like nature of the tool makes the description sufficient for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each kind value represents semantically (e.g., played means recently played playlists/albums, stations means recently listened radio). The limit parameter is already fully specified by the schema's min/max/default, so no additional explanation is needed.

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 the tool reads recent listening or recently added Apple Music content, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from am_top_played by noting this API does not provide play counts.

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?

It explicitly says to use this tool 'when recency matters' and directs users to am_top_played for Replay rankings when play counts are needed. The Chinese section further clarifies the intended use for each kind value, giving the agent concrete selection guidance.

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