list_artists

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description discloses pagination behavior and optional filters, which are key behavioral traits for a listing endpoint. It does not contradict any annotations (none present). Could mention rate limits or response format but is sufficient for a read-only list tool.

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 wasted words. The description is front-loaded with the core action 'List artists' followed by key features, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the complexity (7 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the primary use case and filter categories. It does not explain return format or pagination details beyond schema, but for a list tool this is adequate. Could be slightly more detailed about the output structure.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters under the concept of 'missing data' enrichment and stating the overall goal, which helps the agent understand the intent behind the filters beyond individual parameter descriptions.

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 lists artists with pagination and optional filters for missing data, and explicitly ties its purpose to finding artists needing enrichment. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_artist or get_by_id.

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 directly advises when to use this tool: 'Use this to find artists that need enrichment' and lists example filters (missing location, genres, social URLs). This provides explicit guidance beyond implied usage.

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