get_user_top_artists

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

Annotations already convey read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that, such as 'Defaults to the authenticated account' and the pagination semantics for limit and page. No contradiction exists.

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 concise: a one-sentence summary followed by a compact Args block. Every line contributes necessary information, and the main purpose is front-loaded with 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?

For a read-only 4-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential invocation details: user default, period choices, and pagination. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: user's default, the allowed period values, limit as results per page, and page as which page to fetch. This is meaningful guidance beyond the bare 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a user's most played artists over a period.' It explicitly names 'artists', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_top_albums, get_user_top_tracks, and get_user_top_tags.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, nor does it reference siblings such as get_user_top_tracks or get_chart_top_artists. The use case is implied by the name and wording, but not explicitly compared.

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