resolve_artist

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

With no annotations, the description carries full disclosure burden, but it is silent on key behavior: does it return a single canonical ID or a list of candidate matches? The singular 'to a Spotify artist ID' framing conflicts with the schema's max_results up to 2000 and response_format varieties, implying multi-result output. It also does not disclose ID format (base62 vs spotify:artist: URI), ambiguity handling, or what 'detailed' vs 'concise' returns look like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the core verb, resource, and mechanism are stated immediately. However, the extreme brevity omits essential qualifiers about output multiplicity, so it is efficient but slightly under-informative for its length.

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 resolution tool whose entire purpose is producing an ID (or IDs), the absence of any return-value description is a significant gap, especially with no output schema and no annotations. It also fails to reconcile the duplicate pagination-like parameters (limit vs max_results) or explain how response_format changes the result. An agent cannot predict what this tool will actually return.

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 schema already documents all four parameters with descriptions and constraints. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the full semantic load. No additional clarification is needed for parameter meaning.

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 ('resolve') and resource ('artist name or URI' → 'Spotify artist ID'), which clearly conveys the transformation the tool performs. It is conceptually distinct from plain searching, though it does not explicitly name or differentiate sibling tools like search_artists or artist_name_disambiguator.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many overlapping siblings (search_artists, search, artist_name_disambiguator, get_artist). There are no conditions, exclusions, or scenarios described, leaving the agent to guess which search-like tool fits.

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