Spotify's top lists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious context: 'live' implies real-time, uncached data (consistent with idempotentHint=false), and 'Needs the Spotify grant' flags an authorization prerequisite. Return format and limit behavior remain unstated.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: identity, range semantics, alternative routing, auth prerequisite. Front-loaded with the tool's identity and no filler.

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, the description covers identity, range meaning, routing and auth. It does not describe the response shape or pagination, but for a small three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage it is close to sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description genuinely extends the schema by defining short_term (~4 weeks), medium_term (~6 months) and long_term (~1 year) — the enum values alone convey none of that. That is real added meaning beyond the structured field.

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 resource (Spotify's own top tracks and artists) with the qualifier 'live', and names sibling tools (top_artists, get_stat) as alternatives. It is mostly distinguishable, though the boundary between this and top_tracks/top_artists (whose data it returns) is left implicit.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'For exact counts over any range, use top_artists or get_stat instead.' It also defines the meaning of each range value, which is the key selection criterion. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it relative to top_tracks, but the guidance is concrete.

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