get_user_weekly_track_chart

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds valuable behavioral detail about defaulting to the authenticated account and the most recent week, which goes beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction with annotations.

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, followed by a concise argument list. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and comprehensive annotations, the description covers all necessary operational context: purpose, parameter meanings, defaults, and where to obtain timestamp values. Nothing essential 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?

The input schema provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description thoroughly explains each parameter: user identifies whose chart, and from/to_timestamp are week boundaries sourced from get_user_weekly_chart_list, with defaults clearly stated. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 verb 'Get' and the precise resource: a user's track chart for one week. It clearly distinguishes from sibling weekly artist/album charts by specifying 'track' and 'one week'.

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?

Defaults for user and timestamps are provided, and the description points to get_user_weekly_chart_list as the source of week boundaries, giving useful context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like get_user_recent_tracks or get_user_weekly_artist_chart, leaving tool selection to inference.

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