get_artist_appearances

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP verb (GET, confirming a non-destructive read), the exact Spotify API endpoint, and the quota cost ('Quota: 🟢 single'). It does not mention pagination behavior or response characteristics, but the schema documents the pagination-related parameters.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first phrase, and the quota note is compact and genuinely actionable. 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?

With 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is lean but the 100%-covered schema carries parameter documentation. What is missing is explicit routing among the many artist-focused siblings (get_artist_albums, get_artist_singles, get_artist_discography) and any note on return shape given there is no output schema.

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 of 3 applies. The description adds marginal value by showing include_groups=appears_on in the endpoint URL, reinforcing the default filter, but it contributes nothing about limit, offset, market, artist_id, max_results, or response_format beyond what the schema already documents.

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 names a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('albums an artist appears on'), and the exact API endpoint with include_groups=appears_on. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_artist_albums and get_artist_singles, so an agent can tell them apart without opening any schema.

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 'appears on' phrasing and the include_groups=appears_on URL make the use case clear: retrieving albums where the artist is a guest/featured performer rather than the primary artist. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use it, so the agent must infer the routing from the tool name and endpoint.

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