discogs_master

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Credential-free official Discogs database data', indicating no authentication needed, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, idempotency, or potential data truncation.

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, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value: stating the action, explaining the concept, and noting credential-free access.

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 that there is no output schema, the description lists what the response includes (artists, tracklist, genres, etc.) and confirms it is credential-free. It covers key aspects for a simple retrieval tool, though it omits potential error conditions or data availability nuances.

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% with a single parameter 'id' described as 'Discogs master release id'. The description adds context about what a master release is but does not provide additional semantic meaning for the parameter 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 'Get a Discogs master release' (specific verb+resource) and explains that a master release is a 'version-agnostic grouping of a release across pressings/reissues', which effectively distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'discogs_release' that would fetch a specific version.

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 implies usage for retrieving aggregated release data, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'discogs_release' or 'discogs_search'. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.

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