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

Annotations already establish that the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the result scope (canonical profile, graph context, links, events) and the negative constraint 'does not enumerate the artist catalog'. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences with no filler. The usage condition is front-loaded, and every sentence adds meaningful information about scope or invocation. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 six parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It clarifies purpose and the id/query path, but leaves four parameters undocumented and does not describe response shape or filtering behavior. An agent would need to guess the meaning of city, limit, date_from, and date_to.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the six parameters. It only explains that 'id' or a 'query' (name query) can be passed, leaving city, limit, date_from, and date_to completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a tool with multiple optional parameters.

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 clear, specific action: retrieving a canonical artist profile along with graph context, published links, and upcoming events. It also explicitly notes that the tool does not enumerate the artist catalog, which adds scope precision. However, it does not name or directly differentiate from sibling tools like get_artist_page or get_artist_events, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 opens with 'Use this when a user wants...', giving an explicit condition for when to invoke the tool. It also clarifies the input mode ('Pass an id or a name query'). It does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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