get_user_weekly_album_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond this by explaining default behaviors (user defaults to authenticated account, timestamps default to most recent week) and the source of timestamp values (get_user_weekly_chart_list). It does not contradict any annotations and provides context that helps an agent understand expected behavior. It does not disclose error handling or response specifics, but the output schema covers that, so the description's additions are sufficient.

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 and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clear list of arguments with explanations and defaults. It front-loads the purpose and avoids filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the formatting is easy to scan. This is an exemplary level of efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's read-only nature (annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly. It explains the purpose, all parameters, defaults, and the dependency on get_user_weekly_chart_list. There are no missing critical details for an agent to call this tool. The output schema handles return values, so no description is needed there. This is complete for its complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: each parameter is explained with its purpose and default. 'user' is described as 'whose chart to read' with a default to the authenticated account; 'from_timestamp' is described as 'week start, from get_user_weekly_chart_list' with a default to the most recent week; 'to_timestamp' is described as 'week end, from get_user_weekly_chart_list'. This fully clarifies the semantics beyond the bare schema, which only lists types and null defaults.

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 states the specific action: 'Get a user's album chart for one week.' It clearly identifies the resource (user's album chart) and the time scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_user_weekly_artist_chart and get_user_weekly_track_chart by the word 'album' in the description, aligning with the tool name. However, it doesn't explicitly elaborate on what the chart contains beyond the name, so it's clear but not exceptionally detailed.

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 provides helpful context for when to use this tool: it references get_user_weekly_chart_list for valid timestamps, implying a workflow where the list is fetched first. It also clarifies defaults (authenticated user, most recent week). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use this for album charts, use get_user_weekly_artist_chart for artist charts'), but the tool's name and the description's 'album chart' phrase make the distinction obvious. This is clear context with only a minor omission of explicit alternative routing.

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