discogs_search

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It mentions credential-free and official data, but lacks details on pagination, result format, rate limits, or error handling. Essential for a search tool.

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 very concise (3 short sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, there is slight redundancy between 'Search the Discogs database' and 'Searches Discogs releases...'.

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 no output schema and 4 parameters, the description does not explain what the search returns, pagination behavior, or type filter options. It provides minimal context beyond the domain and credential-free nature.

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 parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond schema, only noting the entity types searched. It does not explain possible values for 'type' or behavior of 'page'/'per_page'.

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 it searches the Discogs database across releases, masters, artists, and labels. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discogs_artist or discogs_release which target specific entities, and includes 'credential-free' as a unique attribute.

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 when to use (for general search across entity types) but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives. No mention of using specific entity tools for direct lookups.

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