artist_discography_explorer

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the quota cost upfront (🟡 one paginated albums walk), the flexible input resolution behavior ('name → closest search match'), and the aggregated nature of the output. It does not explicitly affirm read-only/no-state-change, which would be the one remaining behavioral gap, but the stat-gathering framing and the disclosed cost make the behavior reasonably transparent.

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 zero waste: the first front-loads what the tool produces, the second covers input flexibility, resolution behavior, and quota cost. Every clause earns its place and the density is high — output stats, accepted input forms, fallback resolution semantics, and a cost disclosure are all packed in efficiently.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description's list of stats (counts, first/latest, active span, per-year rate) partially compensates by describing return content. But the tool sits among several heavily overlapping siblings (artist_discography_stats, artist_release_type_breakdown, get_artist_discography) with no disambiguation, and the max_results parameter is left undocumented. An agent can call it correctly, but it may pick the wrong sibling and won't know the walk cap semantics without guessing.

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 75%, so the schema already documents artist, include_groups, and response_format. The description adds one genuine nuance beyond the schema — that a name resolves via 'closest search match' — but max_results (25% of params) has no description in either the schema or the tool description, so an agent must infer its purpose from maximum 2000 and the 'releases per active year' output. The description partially compensates but does not fully cover the gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource category ('Overview stats for one artist's discography') and enumerates the concrete outputs: release counts by type, first/latest releases, active span, releases per active year. This is clearly a summary/aggregate tool rather than a list-returning one. However, it never explicitly differentiates itself from near-twin siblings like artist_discography_stats, artist_release_type_breakdown, or get_artist_discography, 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?

Usage context is implied but not stated: 'Overview stats' signals this is the tool to pick when an agent wants a condensed profile of one artist, and the quota note ('one paginated /artists/{id}/albums walk') hints this is cheaper than a full discography pull. Yet there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named even though the sibling list contains several overlapping tools (artist_discography_stats, get_artist_discography, artist_decade_span).

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