artist_collaboration_network

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits beyond the schema: the depth-2 walk algorithm, the 'from discography walks alone' constraint, and the quota formula '1 + up to first_degree_cap additional small walks.' However, it does not explicitly state whether this is read-only, what happens on quota exhaustion, or how the result is returned.

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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the core algorithm and outcome, and the second gives the quota. The most important behavioral trait, depth-2 and quota, is front-loaded, and every clause earns its place.

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?

The description covers the algorithm and quota but leaves gaps an agent may need: max_results is undocumented in both schema and description, and with no output schema the description does not clarify what the 'concise', 'detailed', or 'json' response formats contain. It is adequate for selecting the tool but not fully complete for invoking it with confidence.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic context by explaining how first_degree_cap and releases_per_collab are used in the walk ('each top collaborator's recent releases') and tying first_degree_cap to the quota. It does not clarify the undocumented max_results parameter, but the algorithm-level explanation goes beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: it 'Builds a depth-2 collaboration web for one artist' via discography walks, with clear first- and second-degree link construction. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like artist_collab_network or find_collaborations, so some differentiation is left to inference, though the depth-2 framing helps.

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 what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives such as artist_collab_network, find_collaborations, or collab_density_report. There is no when-to-use statement, exclusions, or recommended scenarios, so an agent must infer applicability from the function alone.

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