get_library_artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns playcounts and that 'user' defaults to the authenticated account, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose pagination behavior beyond the parameters, or any rate-limit or data-completeness caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is terse and useful. It earns its place without fluff, though the format is a bit mechanical.

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, idempotent list tool with an output schema and only three optional parameters, the description covers the essential semantics. It doesn't explain return value structure, but the output schema exists, so that burden is reduced. Minor gaps: no mention of pagination defaults or how 'every artist' interacts with pagination, but overall adequate.

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 compensate. It does explain 'user' (whose library to read, defaults to authenticated account) and 'limit'/'page' (results per page, which page). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it's minimal and doesn't clarify types, ranges, or edge cases. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Get every artist in a user's library, with playcounts.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_top_artists or get_chart_top_artists, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling. The scope ('every artist in a user's library') is clear.

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 context: it reads a user's library, and the 'user' parameter defaults to the authenticated account. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_user_top_artists or get_chart_top_artists, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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