List a user's tracks / playlists / likes / followers…

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: 'Paginated via next_href.' It also clarifies the semantic meaning of each kind, which helps the agent understand what the call returns. It does not mention auth requirements or rate limits, but those are secondary for a read-only listing tool.

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 description is a single dense sentence but well-structured with a leading verb-object clause and semicolon-separated kind definitions. It is efficient and avoids filler, though the long enumeration is slightly harder to scan than a bulleted format would be.

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 tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential operational context: the range of content kinds and pagination via next_href. Remaining parameters are well covered by the input schema's descriptions. It could be more complete by noting the response shape or that results are paginated arrays, but the given information is 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?

With schema coverage at 83%, most parameters are already documented. The description adds essential meaning to the only under-documented parameter, kind, by enumerating and explaining all ten enum values, including subtle distinctions like followers vs followings and related_artists vs web_profiles. This goes beyond the bare enum in the schema and materially improves selection accuracy.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('content related to a user'), and the kind enumeration specifies exactly which content types are covered. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like soundcloud_list_my_content, so it falls just short of full differentiation.

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 implies the tool is used when you need a user's tracks, playlists, likes, follows, or similar content, and explains how to choose the kind. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or pointers to alternatives (e.g., list_my_content for the current user, search_* for discovery).

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