find_collaborations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the multi-step internal algorithm and the quota cost ('1-2 walks/searches + chunked /albums?ids= fan-in'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond the schema. It stops short of describing failure modes (no collaboration found, unresolvable artist) or auth requirements.

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, both load-bearing: the first front-loads purpose and algorithm, the second adds distinct quota information. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 5-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, algorithm, input roles, and cost. Return shapes are already handled by the response_format parameter with enum descriptions, so the primary remaining gap is failure/edge-case behavior.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds semantic value by clarifying the asymmetric roles — artist_a is the artist whose releases are walked, artist_b is matched by name or ID — a nuance not obvious from the schema alone, which lists nearly identical identifier formats for both.

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 ('Finds'), a specific resource ('tracks where two artists appear together'), and the exact mechanism (walks artist A's releases, matches artist B, pinpoints shared tracks). The algorithmic detail is distinctive enough to separate it from crowded siblings like artist_collab_network and find_canonical_track without naming them.

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 implies the usage context — given two specific artists, find their shared tracks — but gives no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no exclusions, and does not route the agent away from overlap-wise siblings like artist_collaboration_network or featuring_density_report. The quota note hints at cost but not at when the tool should be preferred.

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