search_artists

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation searches for artists and returns a dictionary containing results, and it provides the default limit. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or the shape of the returned dictionary, which leaves some ambiguity.

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 well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact usage trigger list and concise Args/Returns sections. Every part earns its place with no filler.

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 two-parameter search tool, the description covers usage, inputs, defaults, and return container. The main gap is not explaining how this tool relates to search_tidal or the other entity-specific search siblings, but the description is still complete enough for an agent to call it 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 fully compensate. It does: 'query' is defined as the artist search term, and 'limit' is defined as the maximum number of artists to return with its default of 20. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 states a specific verb ('search') and a specific resource ('artists on TIDAL'). It also matches common user phrasings, making it easy for an agent to identify that this tool is for artist-only lookups rather than generic searches.

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 explicitly lists trigger phrases like 'Find the artist [name]' and 'Search for [artist name]', giving clear context for when to invoke this tool. It does not mention when not to use it or contrast it with search_tidal/search_tracks, so it stops short of a 5.

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