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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds important behavioral info: the cost ($0.01 per call, paid via x402) and that it returns 'canonical album data'. No contradictions noted.

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 three sentences: first defines purpose and search methods, second lists returned data, third gives target users and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description covers search methods, data returned, target users, and cost. It does not explain error handling or empty results, but with annotations covering read-only and idempotent behavior, and an output schema for structure, this is sufficient for a lookup tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between parameters (e.g., artist+title, or free-text q, or id with optional kind) and that id lookups can specify 'master' or 'release'. This provides useful grouping and usage context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states 'Album metadata lookup via the Discogs database' and specifies three search methods (artist+title, free-text q, Discogs id). It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_music_cover' which is focused solely on cover art, as this tool returns full album data including a cover-art URL.

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 identifies target users as 'for music, playlist, and cataloging agents', providing clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the sibling tools are largely unrelated except for get_music_cover, which is a different function.

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