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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral nuance beyond that: artist_name is resolved to a MusicBrainz ID with exact-match preference, and it discloses the return fields (date, venue, city, full track lists). This enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with purpose and a practical example. It avoids redundant restatement of the schema and earns every phrase — even the tribute-act nuance clarifies behavior without verbosity.

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?

Given the rich schema (100% coverage) and annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description is complete for the tool's complexity. It covers the core use case, parameter relationship, resolution behavior, and return contents. The output schema and annotations handle the rest, and no critical gaps remain.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaning by explaining how artist_name maps to an MBID and when to prefer one parameter over the other, which goes beyond the schema's basic 'either this or mbid is required' wording. This lifts it above the baseline of 3.

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 opens with 'A band's concert history, newest first' — a specific verb-resource pairing with clear ordering. It then gives a concrete query example ('what did Radiohead play at their most recent show') and names distinct lookup modes (artist_name vs mbid), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like setlist_search or venue_setlists.

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 description explicitly says 'use this for' with a concrete scenario, and it explains when to pass artist_name vs mbid (including the exact-match preference to avoid tribute acts). It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for basic selection.

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