get_liked_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: the newest-to-oldest ordering and a practical cap of 500 on limit, which is useful operational context 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the resource plus ordering come first and the limit advice follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation) and solid annotations, the description supplies ordering and the limit cap. The only real gap is the undocumented offset parameter.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it only partially does. It clarifies limit (value 'up to 500' for analysis) but says nothing about offset, leaving half the parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it returns tracks from the 'Liked' (Мне нравится) collection, and defines the ordering as newest likes to oldest. This is clear enough to distinguish it from like_tracks/unlike_tracks and get_listening_history, though it never names a sibling to differentiate explicitly.

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 gives one implied usage scenario – use a large limit (up to 500) for taste analysis – which hints at the tool's analytical purpose. But it offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never points to an alternative tool (e.g. get_listening_history or search) for adjacent needs.

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