get_user_weekly_artist_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the defaulting behavior (user defaults to authenticated account, from_timestamp defaults to most recent week), which is useful. It doesn't describe pagination or return format, but the output schema exists and the annotations carry the safety burden.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief and useful. It could be slightly more structured, but it earns its place with no wasted words.

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, idempotent tool with an output schema and only 3 optional parameters, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, how to get the week range, and the defaults. The main gap is not specifying the timestamp format, but the reference to get_user_weekly_chart_list mitigates that. Overall, an agent has enough to call this correctly.

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 explain the meaning of user, from_timestamp, and to_timestamp, including that timestamps come from get_user_weekly_chart_list. However, it doesn't specify the timestamp format (e.g., Unix seconds) or the exact relationship between from and to beyond 'week start' and 'week end'. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('user's artist chart for one week'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_weekly_album_chart and get_user_weekly_track_chart. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer the distinction.

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 explains that from_timestamp and to_timestamp come from get_user_weekly_chart_list, which provides clear context on how to obtain the week boundaries. It also states defaults for user and from_timestamp. However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_weekly_track_chart, though the resource name makes that fairly clear.

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