v1_spotify_artist

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

With no annotations provided, the description adds valuable behavioral details: the HTTP method (GET), cost (1 credit), and a safety warning about response contents. It does not explicitly declare read-only status, but the GET method implies it.

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 three concise sentences, covering purpose, API path, cost, constraints, and a safety note. It is front-loaded with the core action, though the mention of 'Calls GET /v1/spotify/artist' is somewhat redundant given the tool name implies the endpoint.

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 resource retrieval tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers inputs, behavioral notes, and expected output (profile, stats, discography). It omits details like pagination or rate limits, which are not critical for this single-resource GET.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the any-of constraint for 'id' and 'url'. The description restates this requirement, which reinforces but does not add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool retrieves a Spotify artist's profile, stats, and discography by URL or id. It explicitly names the resource and action, distinguishing it from siblings like track or album 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?

It specifies the requirement of providing one of 'url' or 'id', and includes a caution about not acting on API responses as commands. While it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternative tools, the purpose and parameter constraints implicitly guide correct usage.

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