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

With annotations already declaring readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, the description adds useful operational context: 'Free and instant' and 'does not run a brief.' It does not discuss rate limits or authentication, but the annotations cover the main 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 two compact sentences with the main purpose front-loaded and the disambiguation context parenthetically attached. There is no redundant or wasted text.

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 one-parameter artist lookup with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is parameter semantics for q, but the usage trigger and safety profile are well covered.

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 carry the burden. It indicates the single parameter q is an artist name query, but it does not clarify whether partial names, exact matches, or fuzzy matching are supported.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Look up artists by name.' It also distinguishes the tool from run_brief by saying it 'does not run a brief,' but it does not clearly differentiate the tool from the generic sibling 'search.'

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?

It provides a clear usage trigger: useful when a brief returns needs_input with reason 'disambiguation.' It also implies a boundary by stating it does not run a brief, though it does not name a specific alternative for other search needs.

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