get_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and network reach are covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no indication of chart region/scope, freshness, or what the chart represents, which is the kind of context that would justify credit here.

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?

It is a single front-loaded fragment with zero waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: the entire description is four words and carries no operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the undocumented limit parameter and the total absence of usage context leave the definition materially incomplete for a tool with one sibling-overlapping competitor.

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%, and the single 'limit' parameter (default 50) is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description does not compensate at all, so the agent must guess what limit bounds — number of chart entries versus something else.

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 phrase names a specific resource ('current Yandex Music chart'), so an agent knows this returns chart data rather than playlists or tracks. However it is a bare noun phrase with no verb and no differentiation from siblings like get_my_wave or get_listening_history, which also return ranked/streamed music data.

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 usage guidance at all: nothing says when to call this instead of get_my_wave, search, or get_listening_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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