getTopArtists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only the basic action without details on read-only safety, required scopes, return format, or pagination. It does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what the name itself implies.

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 core purpose. The second sentence adds a useful contextual note about listening statistics without padding.

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 tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but lacks an explicit statement about the return value and any behavioral caveats, which would be helpful given no output schema or annotations.

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 already covers both parameters with full descriptions and defaults, so the description adds minimal parameter-specific value. The phrase 'over a given time range' aligns with timeRange but doesn't go beyond schema information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current user's top artists'), explicitly clarifies it's most-played, and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on artists rather than tracks or albums. The phrase 'closest thing to listening statistics' adds helpful framing.

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?

The description implies use for retrieving a user's top artists over a chosen time range but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like getTopTracks or state when not to use it. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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