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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about tenant scoping and the requirement to use public_uid instead of internal numeric ID. However, it does not mention potential pitfalls like not-found behavior, auth requirements, or response formats, which would be expected for a fully transparent description.

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 a single sentence, directly front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains zero filler. It is concise and to the point.

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 get tool with a fully described input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: the specific entity type, tenant scope, and key ID requirement. While it doesn't elaborate on all edge cases, the structured schema compensates, making it sufficiently 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already carries detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description's emphasis on 'somente public_uid' is redundant with the schema's id description. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'Consulta' (queries) and the resource 'registro de artista' (artist record), and adds a specific constraint 'usando somente public_uid' (using only public_uid). This distinguishes it from sibling get_ tools for other entity types.

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 when the caller has a public_uid and needs a single artist from the current tenant. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the constraint 'somente public_uid' and tenant scope provide clear context for when to use this tool.

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