Check Followed Artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond these: chunking into at most 40 per call, a legacy fallback, and the auth scope requirement (user-follow-read). This goes beyond the annotations and provides useful operational details without contradicting them.

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-structured with a brief intro, then dedicated Args and Returns sections. It is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The technical details (chunking, route, fallback) are relevant and not excessive, though the phrasing 'consolidated library route' might be opaque to some agents.

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 description covers purpose, auth scope, input format, limits, and return mapping (MembershipStatus.results). An output schema exists, so the description needn't fully explain return structure, but it does anyway. For a simple read-only check with one parameter, it is nearly complete, covering the essential context an agent needs 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?

The schema only defines artist_ids as an array of strings with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by clarifying that artist_ids can be either IDs or URIs and that up to 50 are accepted. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema, though it doesn't specify format details like URI syntax.

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 tool checks up to 50 artist follows, using the verb 'check' and the resource 'artist follows'. It is specific about the action and resource, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar sibling tools like check_saved_tracks or check_saved_albums, so it lacks explicit 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 description provides implementation details such as the consolidated library route, legacy fallback, and the required user-follow-read scope, but it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of preferred conditions, leaving usage context to inference.

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