Get Replay Rankings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: the data source (Apple Music Replay backend), the output fields (play count, first/last played dates), the host constraint (only amp-api available), and the caveat that all-time data may not exist. This goes beyond annotations and helps the agent anticipate behavior.

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 portion is concise and front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by caveats. The Chinese translation duplicates the same content, adding length without new information, but it is not overly verbose and may serve multilingual contexts. Overall, the structure is efficient, though slightly redundant.

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 query tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, output fields, host constraints, and data-availability caveats. It includes a fallback strategy for the all-time case. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it mentions kind and year in passing but does not elaborate on formats or edge cases. The description of return fields is useful but not parameter semantics. It meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 Apple Music Replay play-count rankings by song, album, or artist, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly differentiates from am_recently_played, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without ambiguity.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use am_recently_played for latest listening, and this tool when frequency matters. It also advises retrying with a specific year if all-time data is unavailable, which is practical usage guidance beyond just a description.

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