get_track_stats_period

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say what the statistics contain, whether results are aggregated or per-listener, what permissions are needed, or how much history is retained — all questions an agent would have for a stats read 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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a two-parameter read tool, though the second sentence largely duplicates schema 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it omits what the statistics actually include and how far back they can be queried. It is minimally adequate but leaves real gaps for an agent to fill.

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 100%, with both station_id and period already documented in the schema, including the '24h' or yyyy-mm-dd values. The description repeats that same period syntax rather than adding format, timezone, or boundary semantics beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get track statistics') and scopes it with 'for a specific period', which distinguishes it functionally from the sibling get_track_stats. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over the closely-named sibling get_track_stats or get_listener_stats. The sentence about '24h' vs a date is parameter formatting guidance, not usage guidance, so an agent gets no when/when-not criteria.

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