get_related_artists

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only mentions a 403 restriction (same as /recommendations), but does not state that this is a read-only operation, describe the response format, or mention pagination, errors, or side effects. The warning is useful but insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant content. The purpose is stated first, and the caveat is appended second. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the primary purpose and one critical access limitation, but omits details like expected response structure (likely covered by output schema) and any additional error conditions. Given the simplicity, it is acceptable but could be more complete.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description adds minimal meaning. It implies that 'artist_id' identifies the artist whose related artists are returned, but gives no format, type, or examples. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, though it does indicate the parameter's role.

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 action ('Get artists') and the resource ('related to the given one'), which is distinct from siblings like get_artist or get_recommendations. It precisely conveys the tool's purpose without ambiguity or tautology.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions a 403 restriction, but does not explain when to prefer this over get_recommendations or get_artist. No when-not-to-use conditions or alternative references are given.

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