artist_collab_network

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does well: it flags local-compute, real-payload provenance, the 403 failure mode with album-only fallback and 'explicit disclosure,' plus quota cost. It doesn't state read-only status, invalid-id behavior, or the return shape, but the disclosed failure/fallback behavior is far beyond typical.

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?

Every clause earns its place: source, computation origin, dead-endpoint avoidance, gating surface, fallback and disclosure, and quota. Purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler given the complexity it conveys.

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 multi-source tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers provenance, failure mode, fallback, disclosure behavior, and cost. The main omission is a concrete description of the result shape, though 'co-appearance counts' and the response_format enum give partial hints. This is strong but not exhaustive.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3; the tool description adds almost no parameter-level meaning beyond alluding to album walking and counts. The one undocumented parameter (max_results) is not compensated for in the description. This meets but doesn't exceed the baseline.

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 opening clause states a specific verb ('extracted') plus resource ('an artist's top tracks and recent albums') and the computed metric ('co-appearance counts'), so an agent knows exactly what this tool produces. It also contrasts itself with the 'dead related-artists endpoint,' making its scope unambiguous. Though it doesn't name near-twin siblings like find_collaborations, the mechanism described is specific enough to tell it apart.

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 gives actionable usage context: the top-tracks source is registration-gated (#329), the 403 fallback path is described, and the quota ('1 + paginated API calls') is stated. It also tells the agent to use real payloads over the dead related-artists endpoint. It lacks explicit routing to/from MCP sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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