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

Adds real value beyond the annotations by disclosing a cost of 1 credit and by enumerating the returned fields, which matters since there is no output schema. It doesn't cover failure modes (invalid id, rate limits), but for a read-only open-world profile lookup it is well above baseline.

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?

Three short sentences with the resource identity front-loaded and zero filler. The field enumeration and cost note both earn their place; only the fragment style slightly reduces readability.

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?

Annotations cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, and the field list substitutes partly for the missing output schema. However, the undocumented cache_max_age parameter and the absence of any guidance on sourcing the required id leave a noticeable gap.

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?

At 50% schema coverage, the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not. There is no mention of the required 'id' format or of the 'cache_max_age' parameter, which is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 resource (Deezer artist profile) and enumerates the fields returned (name, fans, album count, picture, link), which distinguishes it from deezer_artistAlbums and deezer_artistTopTracks that cover adjacent data. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the field list makes the boundary inferable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus the other deezer_* sibling tools (artistAlbums, artistTopTracks, search), and no mention of how to obtain the required id. Usage is only implied by the tool name and field list.

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