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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by attributing the relationship to Spotify's own 'Fans also like' signal, telling the agent these are platform-curated associations rather than computed similarity. It stops short of noting the 20-item cap, ordering, or error behavior.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant detail ('Fans also like') is packed in rather than buried. Nothing is wasted or repeated.

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 only two parameters and rich annotations, most requirements are met, but there is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back. 'Artists' implies a list, yet ordering, fields, empty-result behavior, and handling of unknown artists are unaddressed.

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 100%: the artist parameter's accepted formats (ID, URI, URL) and the limit range (1-20, default 20) are fully documented in the schema. The description only says 'the given artist' and adds no format, defaulting, or edge-case detail beyond that.

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 resource returned (artists related to a given artist) and clarifies the data source with Spotify's own 'Fans also like' label, so an agent can tell it apart from generic artist lookups like get_artist_overview. It omits an explicit verb ('returns a list of'), but the retrieval intent is unmistakable.

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 'related to ... the given artist' implies the use case (finding similar artists), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_artist_insights or get_artist_overview, and no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the sibling names.

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