saved_tracks_by_artist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses the name-resolution step (1 search), the getAllPages paging cost via the quota indicator, and the fact that it operates on the liked shelf. The read-only nature is clearly implied by 'List... filters.' The main gap is no mention of return format, but the quota disclosure and resolution behavior go beyond what the schema states.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads purpose and behavior, the second states quota. Every clause earns its place — the example paraphrase, the resolution mechanics, and the cost disclosure are all high-value information with no redundancy.

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 moderate-complexity read-only filter tool, the description plus the 100%-documented schema covers the essential call path well. The gaps are minor: no hint about return shape (and there's no output schema to fall back on), and no clarification of why dry_run exists on an evidently read-only operation. Otherwise, an agent has what it needs to call and plan this tool correctly.

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 and the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds only marginal parameter insight — it reinforces the artist name-vs-ID behavior and the cost of name resolution, but the schema already states 'or a name (1 search to resolve).' The quota note adds practical cost context but no new semantic meaning for the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('List your SAVED tracks for one artist') and adds a natural-language paraphrase ('everything I've saved by X') that pins down the exact scope. The deliberate capitalization of 'SAVED' and the phrase 'filters the liked shelf' clearly set it apart from siblings like get_saved_tracks (all saved), get_artist_top_tracks (not saved-filtered), and artist_discography (catalog, not library).

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 for when to use the tool: when you want everything saved by a single artist, and it explains the two-step behavior (resolve ID, then filter the liked shelf). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions (e.g., when to prefer search_saved_tracks or get_saved_tracks), though the quota note implicitly guides the agent to pass an ID rather than a name when possible.

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