get_recommendations

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it excels: it discloses seed truncation ('max 5 seeds; excess are truncated'), limit bounds ('1–100, default: 5'), return keys, and raised exceptions (ValueError, spotipy.SpotifyException). This goes well beyond basic behavior.

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 compact, well-structured with sections (Note, Parameters, Returns, Raises), and front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose. Every section adds value and there is no redundant wording.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description provides additional critical context: deprecation status, parameter constraints, error behavior, and return shape. It is fully self-contained for an agent to select and invoke the 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully defines seed_tracks as 'Spotify track URIs or bare IDs' and documents limit's range and default, adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 opens with 'Fetch track recommendations based on a list of seed track URIs or IDs,' which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'generate_playlist,' which may also operate on seed tracks, so it lacks clear sibling differentiation.

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 deprecation note provides a clear when/when-not condition ('works for apps created before that date or granted continued access'), serving as an explicit usage constraint. However, no alternative tools are named, so it does not fully meet the 'alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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