Top Artists

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

The annotations already establish safety: readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the data scope ('current user's') and the time-range qualifier, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or any limitations. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action ('Return') and resource ('most-played artists'). Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple read-only tool.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the well-defined input schema (with defaults and enums), the comprehensive annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to invoke correctly. It provides the core purpose and leaves parameter details to the schema. The only minor gap is not explicitly mentioning the limit parameter, but the schema covers it with defaults and bounds.

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 compensate for parameter meaning. It does mention 'time range' (mapping to time_range), but it does not explain the enum values or the limit parameter at all. The description adds partial semantic for time_range but leaves limit completely undocumented. The schema itself is self-explanatory for limit, but the description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Return the current user's most-played artists for a Spotify time range.' It uses a specific verb ('Return'), identifies the resource ('current user's most-played artists'), and notes the time-range parameter. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool spotify_top_tracks, which focuses on tracks rather than artists.

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 provides clear context by indicating it is for retrieving the current user's top artists within a Spotify time range. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use, or exclusions. The usage is implied but not contrasted with sibling tools like spotify_top_tracks or spotify_recently_played. This falls under 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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