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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the response shape (data.rows[] fields, pagination.next_cursor), a hard operational constraint (tool is disabled while the protection ladder is raised, returning tool_disabled / ladder_L1), auth requirements ('linked'), credit attribution, and a handling rule for ambiguity.state and untrusted_text. This is exactly the operational context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Line-per-concern structure (Use / Inputs / Returns / Disabled / Policy / Auth) is front-loaded and scannable with no filler. Some entries are terse to the point of opacity ('Credit attribution.line', 'ambiguity.state is not none') for an agent without prior context.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates by naming the returned row fields and pagination cursor. Combined with the disable condition, auth state, and ambiguity/untrusted-text handling rules, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool correctly.

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?

With 83% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: exact Discogs vocabulary for genre/style, the three tier values, sort semantics, the effective 1–30 limit range, and that cursor comes from pagination.next_cursor. Most of this echoes the schema, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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 and resource ('Browse hosaka's artist grid') plus the exact facet dimensions (Discogs genre/style, emergence tier, sort). An agent can tell it is a filtered browsing tool. It does not, however, distinguish itself from curated siblings like list_breakouts, list_ones_to_watch, or list_tastemakers, which overlap in intent.

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 'Use: artists in a genre or style, by emergence tier' line gives clear context for when to reach for this tool. It provides no exclusions or explicit routing to alternatives such as find_similar_artists or the curated list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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