Top songs over a date range

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent profile, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: editions are collapsed together, results are sorted by play count, dates are local and inclusive, and the window defaults to 30 days with a 3,660-day cap. It doesn't describe pagination or what a truncated/empty result looks like, so it's not exhaustive.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it aggregates, followed by usage examples and constraints. Every sentence carries information; 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 carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming the unit (play counts per song) and ordering. It's complete enough to call correctly, though it could say more about result shape (e.g. fields returned) given no output schema exists.

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 adds semantics the schema lacks: the dates are 'local' and 'inclusive', the default window is the last 30 days, and the maximum span is 3,660 days (the schema's limit field has no such range note). This is meaningful extra meaning on top of a fully documented schema.

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+resource ('play counts per song'), the ordering ('most played first'), and the aggregation rule ('editions of a song ... folded together'). An agent can distinguish this from top_artists (artists) and track_history (per-track detail) without opening a schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage examples ('my top songs in July', 'most played song last year') plus the default window and max range, so the agent knows when this tool is the right fit. It never names an alternative to avoid (e.g. track_history or spotify_top), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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