Get related artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't disclose result ordering, that results are capped, that openWorldHint implies live upstream calls to SoundCloud, or what the compact-vs-verbose return distinction means in practice.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, so it is certainly concise, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy. Nothing is front-loaded because nothing beyond the name is communicated.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be explained, but for a 3-parameter lookup with partial schema coverage the description is too thin: it omits the pagination/limit behavior and the meaning of "related" that an agent needs to call this correctly rather than guessing.

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 only 33% — only the verbose flag is documented in the schema. The description never mentions userId's accepted type (string or number), what limit defaults to or that it is capped at 200, nor does it explain the verbose compact/summary distinction beyond the schema text.

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 gives a verb and a resource ("Find artists related to a user"), which is more than a tautology, but "related to a user" is ambiguous on a music platform where users are artists — it never clarifies whether the relation is drawn from the given user's follows, genre, or the listening graph. It also does nothing to distinguish this from the nearby get_related_tracks or get_user_followings siblings.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that userId must be a numeric SoundCloud id resolvable via resolve_url), and no named alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the artist-similarity lookup and not a social-graph call.

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