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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful details beyond annotations: artist identity includes nullable mbid and verified spotify_id, and performances carry ticket_url as the resolved closest-to-purchase link. It doesn't cover return-shape details like total counts, but the annotations carry the safety profile.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a use case and return-value detail. It is efficient overall, though phrases like 'stable identity' are slightly abstract and could be clearer.

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?

With 10 parameters, 0 required, and three alternative artist identifiers (artist_id, name, slug), the description does not clarify which identifier takes precedence or whether they are alternatives. It also doesn't mention pagination limits beyond the schema. It is adequate but leaves an important invocation ambiguity unaddressed.

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%, so every parameter is documented in the input schema. The description implies filtering by city/country/date through its example but adds no new syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('one artist's stable identity and performances'), making the scope clear. It implicitly distinguishes itself from search_events and search_artists by focusing on a single artist's full schedule, but doesn't name alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides a concrete example use case ('Where is Peggy Gou playing in Europe next month?') and mentions paging through a touring artist's full schedule. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but lacks explicit exclusions or named alternatives.

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