get_playlist_by_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it operates on others' public playlists and accepts any Yandex Music domain (.ru/.com/.by/.kz), which tells the agent about reach and input flexibility.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences: purpose first, then supported URL formats, then domain coverage. No filler, though the URL enumeration is dense and could be slightly tightened.

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 no explanation, and readOnly/openWorld annotations cover safety. The description is nearly complete for a two-parameter read tool, with the only gap being the undocumented limit 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It compensates well for the url parameter by enumerating the accepted link shapes (user/playlist number, new uuid/lk format, /album/<id>), but it says nothing about the limit parameter (default 300), leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 (fetch tracks) and resource (by Yandex Music URL), and scopes it clearly: it works for other people's public playlists and accepts album links. The URL-based framing implicitly separates it from ID-based siblings like get_playlist_tracks, but it never names an alternative 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent infers 'use this when you have a link.' There is no explicit when/when-not, no comparison to get_playlist_tracks or get_album_tracks, and no note on prerequisites, so the routing guidance is only suggestive.

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