discogs_artist

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns a 'normalized' profile and lists fields, and is 'credential-free', but lacks details on rate limits, data format, or error handling. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 with clear front-loading: first sentence states purpose, second details output and adds context. No irrelevance.

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?

For a simple retrieval tool with one param and no output schema, it is fairly complete: it lists the output fields and notes no credential needed. Could mention error handling or data format, but minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'id' parameter with a basic description. The tool description does not add new semantics about the parameter (e.g., how to obtain the id or format). Meets baseline for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Discogs artist profile') and lists the fields returned (real name, bio, links, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like discogs_artist_releases or discogs_search by focusing on the profile itself.

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 mentions 'Credential-free official Discogs database data' implying no auth needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives (e.g., discogs_search for finding artists by name, or discogs_artist_releases for releases). No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance.

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