discogs_label

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

No annotations provided, so description must bear full burden. Only states it 'returns a normalized Discogs label profile' with listed fields. No disclosure of rate limits, data freshness, error behaviors, or whether the operation is safe/mutating. For a read tool, minimal but missing details about pagination or size limits.

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, highly concise. Front-loaded with purpose, lists return fields efficiently. No redundant or filler content.

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 single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. Could be slightly more complete with explanation of 'normalized' or example usage, but sufficient for a simple 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?

Schema coverage is 100% (only one param 'id' with description 'Discogs label id'). Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Get a Discogs label profile' with explicit verb (Get) and resource (Discogs label profile). Distinguishes from siblings like discogs_label_releases which retrieves releases, not profile. Provides specific return fields: profile text, contact info, parent label, sub-labels.

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?

Mentions 'credential-free', implying no auth needed, which is a usage hint. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like discogs_label_releases or discogs_search. No when-not-to-use or context for sibling differentiation.

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