check_following_artists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns a boolean per ID (output shape) and enforces a max of 50, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only or requires authentication, though the nature of a check suggests read-only behavior. The description adds value but leaves some behavioral aspects unaddressed.

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 two concise sentences that deliver purpose, output format, and constraints with zero fluff. Critical details are front-loaded: the verb and resource come first, followed by the return type and limit. Every word 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?

For a simple check tool with one parameter, the description provides essential information: what it does, what it returns, and the size limit. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance relative to get_followed_artists, and since there is no output schema, it does not specify whether the boolean result is returned as an array in the same order as input IDs. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 has 100% description coverage—the 'ids' parameter is described as 'Spotify artist IDs to check' and includes maxItems. The description's mention of 'Max 50' is redundant with the schema. It adds no additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Check'), a clear resource ('if the user follows specific artists'), and defines the output ('Returns a boolean per ID') plus a limit ('Max 50'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_followed_artists, which presumably lists all followed artists rather than checking specific IDs.

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 conveys its purpose—checking specific artist IDs—which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like get_followed_artists or state when not to use it. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so an agent must infer the differentiation from the tool name and description.

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