user_get_weekly_chart_list

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value beyond the annotation: the result ordering (newest first) and the fact that each entry carries from/to ranges — the key information an agent needs to chain into the weekly chart tools, especially since there is no output schema.

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, zero filler. The scoping/purpose statement comes first and the chaining hint second, which is the right front-loading for an agent scanning tool lists.

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?

With no output schema and only two simple optional parameters, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does so (weeks, newest-first ordering, from/to values). It could say more about what defines a week boundary (calendar vs. rolling) and how 'limit' truncates the listing, but nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 100%, and both parameters ('user' with its LASTFM_USERNAME default fallback, and 'limit' with min/max) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 names the resource precisely ('past weeks have charts'), states the ordering ('newest first'), and identifies the payload ('from/to values'), which makes it immediately distinguishable from the sibling user_get_weekly_track_chart / _artist_chart / _album_chart tools that consume those values.

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 clear context ('Use it to compare specific weeks') and implicitly routes the agent: call this first to obtain from/to, then pass them to the user_get_weekly_*_chart tools. What's missing is an explicit exclusion — e.g. that it should not be used when the agent already knows the date range, or when a single current week is wanted.

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