spotify_discover_by_artist

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only mentions 'discover' and the source, without detailing what the operation entails (e.g., read-only, auth needs, sorting, or definition of 'recent'). It does not disclose constraints or side effects.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no extraneous information. Every word adds value.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description leaves ambiguity about what 'recent albums' means (timeframe?) and how many related artists are considered. It is adequate but not fully complete for complex usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by hinting at the limit parameter (1-50) and mentioning 'artist', but it does not explain the artist_id format (likely Spotify ID) or the exact behavior of the limit beyond a range. It is moderately helpful but could be more specific.

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 verb 'Discover tracks' and specifies the resource: an artist's related artists' recent albums, with a limit range 1-50. This distinguishes it from siblings like spotify_discover_by_mood and spotify_related_artists.

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 implies usage for discovering new tracks based on an artist's related artists, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as other discovery tools or related artist queries. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions are given.

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