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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results come back as paginated result cards with page metadata, which is modestly useful, but says nothing about rate limits, auth, or result caps.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose; nothing is redundant or bloated. The second sentence is slightly filler given an output schema already exists, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

With a 100%-covered schema, annotations for safety, and an output schema covering returns, the definition gives the agent enough to call it correctly. The only gap is the absence of routing guidance versus the sibling detail tools.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents q, page, type, and per_page. The description only restates 'query' and 'optional type filter' without adding format, default, or boundary detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (Discogs releases, masters, artists, or labels), so the agent immediately knows the scope. It distinguishes itself in kind from the sibling detail tools (discogs_release, discogs_artist, discogs_label, discogs_master) which fetch by id, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 offers a hint on usage ('use the selected type to narrow catalog discovery') but never states when to prefer this search over the sibling lookup tools or what the type filter buys the caller. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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