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 safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: newest-to-oldest ordering, the presence of liked_at, and a maximum limit of 500. It does not explain offset/pagination 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ordering, then the actionable limit guidance. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no waste.

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 read-only list tool with annotations and an output schema, this is mostly complete: it covers ordering, liked_at, and the limit cap. The main missing piece is pagination or offset behavior, which is not described in either the schema or the description.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so for limit by specifying a max of 500 and recommending larger values for taste analysis, but offset is not explained anywhere, leaving a clear gap for one of the two parameters.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Треки из «Мне нравится»') and its ordering (newest likes first), which distinguishes it from playlist or history tools. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with siblings such as get_listening_history or search, but the purpose is still clear.

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 usage cue ('Для анализа вкуса бери limit побольше'), which implies a taste-analysis scenario. However, it does not say when to choose this over get_listening_history or search, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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