get_user_recent_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are ordered most-recent-first, a currently playing track appears first with a nowplaying flag and no play date, and the user defaults to the authenticated account. This goes beyond the schema and enriches the agent's expectation of output and side effects.

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 well-structured: a concise opening statement, a brief usage gloss, a key behavioral note, and an organized Args block. The 'This is the tool for' sentence adds slight redundancy with the first sentence but is short and reinforces usage. Every sentence earns its place; the structure is front-loaded and scannable.

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 6 optional parameters, an output schema, and safe read-only annotations, the description covers all necessary usage: ordering, nowplaying flag, pagination (limit, page), time filters, extended flag, and default user. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. No critical operational detail is missing for correct invocation.

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 0% (no descriptions in the schema), so the description must fully explain parameters. It does: each parameter in the Args list has a clear, concise explanation (e.g., user: 'Whose history to read. Defaults to the authenticated account.'; extended: 'Also return artist images and whether you loved each track.'). It also specifies the maximum limit value (200). No parameter is left ambiguous.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get a user's listening history, most recent first.' It then adds a user-oriented gloss ('what have I been listening to') and a specific ordering detail (nowplaying flag first). This unambiguously distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_loved_tracks and get_user_top_tracks, which serve different data.

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 phrase 'This is the tool for...' gives strong contextual guidance on when to use it, and the note about the nowplaying flag clarifies a key behavioral nuance. It does not explicitly list exclusions or name alternative tools for related queries (e.g., loved tracks), but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can route correctly without confusion.

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