get_similar_tracks

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the function without mentioning that the result is a list, the default count (10 via nb parameter), or that it is a read-only operation. The agent gets no insight into side effects or constraints.

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?

While extremely brief, the description is underspecified. Conciseness should not sacrifice clarity; here, it omits critical parameter and behavioral information. The single phrase is a minimal statement rather than an informative description.

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 has two parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain how to use the parameters, what the output looks like, or how it differs from similar tools like 'get_similar_artists'.

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?

Parameter descriptions are entirely missing from both the schema and the tool description. The description does not explain that 'track_id' is the seed track or that 'nb' controls the number of results. With 0% schema coverage, the agent has no help understanding parameters.

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 clearly states the tool returns tracks similar to a given track. It is specific about the resource (tracks) and action (get similar), but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_similar_artists', relying on the name for 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other discovery tools like 'get_recommendations' or 'get_similar_artists'. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, use cases, or alternatives.

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