Look up a Lightning FM artist

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses accepted input formats (display name, hex, npub) and return contents (profile + every published track). It does not describe error handling or what happens on ambiguous matches, and the read-only nature is implied rather than explicit, so a 5 is not warranted.

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?

A single, efficiently worded sentence that front-loads the action and target, then conveys return value without filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what will be returned (profile + tracks). It leaves a few edge cases unaddressed (e.g., ambiguous names, empty results), but the tool is simple enough that these are minor gaps.

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% and the schema already explains the parameter well (partial match ok, formats). The description essentially repeats that information without adding extra semantic context about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 a specific verb ('Look up'), the resource ('artist'), and the accepted identifiers (display name or Nostr pubkey), and further specifies that it returns the profile plus all published tracks. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_catalog, so it stops short of a 5.

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 intended use is clear: when you need an artist's profile and tracks by name or pubkey, this is the tool. It does not explicitly address when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving sibling differentiation to inference.

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