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

Beyond the safety annotations, the description discloses a credit model, ambiguity handling, gap return shape, next_actions behavior for unfitted opt-ins, and that untrusted_text is display-only. These are meaningful behavioral traits that help an agent invoke the tool correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded, using clear labels for Use, Inputs, Returns, Credit, and Auth. Some shorthand such as 'linked', 'opt-ins', and '+1 unit each' is cryptic, but there is no fluff and every line carries operational meaning.

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 relatively complex tool with no output schema, the description covers return facets, opt-ins, gap shape, next_actions, credit attribution, ambiguity handling, untrusted text, and auth. That is enough for an agent to call the tool correctly without needing more return-value documentation.

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?

Although schema description coverage is only 50%, the description compensates by clarifying key provenance, include costs and row limits, and that facets are linked with names in the schema. It does not expand on what summary vs standard vs full mean, but the enum and core semantics are otherwise well covered.

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 states the resource precisely: an artist card plus optional published facets, with a clear use case of an artist's facts, releases, or signals. It also distinguishes its key input as coming from resolve_artist, but it does not clearly differentiate itself from siblings such as get_profile or browse_artists.

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 gives clear usage context with 'Use: an artist's facts, releases or signals' and a prerequisite that the key comes from resolve_artist or a slug. It also says to ask first when ambiguity.state is not none, but it does not name when-not-to-use or explicit sibling alternatives.

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