get_followed_artists

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation, and the description adds important behavioral context by disclosing the cursor-pagination mechanism and how to advance through pages. This goes beyond the annotation's generic safety signal.

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 no filler. The core purpose is stated first, and the pagination instruction is compactly appended. Every word contributes meaning.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema present, this description is complete enough. It names the resource, indicates the read-only nature through annotations, and explains the non-obvious cursor parameter.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains that `after` is the last returned artist id used as a cursor, which is valuable. However, it does not clarify the `limit` parameter's role or valid range beyond what the schema's default of 20 implies.

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 identifies the resource ('Artists the user follows') and the operation (get/retrieve), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_top_artists. It is specific and unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 call this tool: to retrieve artists the user follows. It also provides concrete usage guidance for cursor pagination ('pass the last returned artist id as after'). However, it does not state exclusions or compare with alternatives.

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