get_user_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a critical non-obvious trait: the endpoint is removed by Spotify's February 2026 API changes and unavailable for newer app registrations. It also clarifies the operation is for public data, though it does not cover error cases or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and return fields in the first sentence, followed by the essential deprecation caveat in the second. There is no waste; every clause adds information an agent needs.

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 2-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the resource, returned fields, and a critical availability restriction. It lacks explicit error behavior (e.g., what happens for an invalid user_id) and does not state that no authentication scope is required, but these are minor for a well-scoped public-profile getter.

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 meaning by clarifying that user_id refers to any Spotify user's ID, not the authenticated user's, which is valuable given the sibling get_me exists. It does not redundantly re-describe response_format, which the schema already documents thoroughly.

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 and resource: 'Get any Spotify user's public profile', and lists the exact fields returned (display name, follower count, profile image). The phrase 'any' clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_me, which targets the authenticated user, so an agent can select it without inspecting other tools.

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 gives clear context that this works for any user's public profile, which implies the appropriate use case. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, although the deprecation warning ('unavailable for newer app registrations') serves as a caution for certain environments.

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