get_artist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but nothing is stated about return behavior, handling of invalid IDs, auth requirements, or how response_format alters output — the response_format semantics are only documented in the schema. The description adds essentially nothing beyond what the tool name already implies.

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?

Six words, front-loaded, and zero waste — the sentence earns its place. However, it is so terse that a single clause could have added sibling differentiation or usage context without meaningful cost.

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 schema is rich enough for basic parameter usage, but with roughly 300 siblings including dozens of get_artist_* variants, the description does not state what 'artist info' includes or how it differs from get_artist_top_tracks, get_artist_discography, or get_several_artists. There is no output schema, so the return shape is entirely unspecified.

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%: `id` is documented as 'Spotify artist ID' and `response_format` has per-value explanations ('concise' = human prose, 'detailed' = more fields in prose, 'json' = raw API object). The description adds no parameter information, so the baseline 3 applies — the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('get') and resource ('artist info') with the key identifier ('by ID'), making the core purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from many similar siblings like get_artist_top_tracks, get_artist_discography, get_artist_genres, or get_several_artists, leaving the agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The extensive sibling list includes closely related tools such as get_several_artists (batch lookup), resolve_artist (name-based disambiguation), and get_artist_top_tracks, yet none are referenced or contrasted. The agent receives zero routing help.

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