Get an artist's tracks

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 and the description is not contradicting them. It adds the ordering semantics of the sort values and the external-id dependency, but says nothing about result volume, page boundaries, or how the limit interacts with the sibling next_page 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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: purpose, id acquisition, and sort semantics. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema constraints.

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 read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to pick the tool and construct a call. The one meaningful omission is pagination: limit caps at 200 and a next_page sibling exists, but the description never mentions how to continue past a page.

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 only 25% (only verbose is documented inline), so the description carries more burden than usual. It usefully explains what 'asc' vs 'desc' actually orders (oldest first vs newest first) and where userId comes from, but leaves limit's practical meaning and interaction with next_page unaddressed; the constraints themselves are already in the schema.

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 concrete verb+resource ('List a user's uploads'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from get_user_playlists, get_user_likes, and get_user_reposts by resource type. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_my_tracks, which returns the authenticated user's own uploads, so the boundary between 'a user' and 'my' is left implicit.

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?

It states the prerequisite for the required userId parameter by naming search_users as the way to find ids, which is genuine routing guidance. It does not say when to prefer get_my_tracks over this tool for the caller's own uploads, nor when search_tracks would be a better alternative for discovery.

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