get_followed_artists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses cursor-based pagination, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, response format, or any potential side effects (though there are none). The pagination note adds value, but other behavioral aspects are left uncovered.

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 a single concise sentence that immediately states the core function and the pagination characteristic. It is appropriately front-loaded and contains no fluff or redundant details. For a simple getter tool, this level of brevity is effective.

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 read tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and pagination behavior. It could mention that it returns a list of artist objects and how to use the cursor for subsequent calls, but the schema already clarifies the cursor's role. It is adequate but misses some context like the return type and iteration pattern.

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% – both 'after' and 'limit' are described in the input schema. The description's mention of cursor-based pagination simply restates the schema's 'after' description ('Artist ID cursor for pagination'). It adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'all artists the user follows,' which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from many siblings by the scope of 'artists the user follows,' though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like check_following_artists. The purpose is clear without needing to open the 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that check_following_artists exists for checking specific artists, or when pagination might need to be handled. The description offers no context about conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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