radio_top_clicked

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing beyond the implicit descending-popularity ordering. It omits the aggregation window (all-time? weekly?), the source of clicks, and pagination behavior — details that matter for a 'top' ranking 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing details flagged above rather than from deliberate tightness.

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?

A simple read-only list tool whose annotations and lack of output schema lower the bar, so the definition is minimally workable. Still, an agent cannot tell how many results come back by default or how this differs from radio_top_voted, which is enough of a gap to keep it at minimum viable.

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% for the single parameter 'limit', and the description says nothing about it — no default value, maximum, or effect on the result set. The description therefore fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

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 and resource ('Get the most-clicked radio stations') with an explicit ranking criterion, so the agent knows this is a popularity-ranked list rather than a search. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling radio_top_voted (most-clicked vs. most-voted), leaving real ambiguity about which tool to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools (radio_search, radio_by_country, radio_by_tag, radio_top_voted) that cover adjacent needs. The agent must infer selection criteria entirely from the name.

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