spotify_get_followed_artists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none: it does not state pagination/ordering behaviour, whether authentication as the 'current user' is required, or what happens at the end of a cursor chain. The only disclosure is that results are scoped to the current user.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is as short as it can be while still naming verb and resource, though it is arguably too thin to earn more than a 4.

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 zero-required-parameter, flat-structure read tool whose params are 100% documented in the schema, this is largely sufficient. No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits any note that results are paginated via the cursor.

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 100%, so both 'after' (cursor) and 'limit' (max 50, default 20) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (artists followed by the current user), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as spotify_get_saved_albums or spotify_follow_artists, so the agent must infer the read-vs-write boundary.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance is given, no mention of alternatives, and no hint that this is a paginated listing. The agent is left to infer that this is a read-only retrieval of the user's followed artists.

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