artist_discography_gaps

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden and does add useful behavioral detail: default chronological ordering, a paginated walk, and a concrete quota cost (one walk, several queued calls on long discographies). It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect status, but the framing clearly describes a read/compute operation.

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 compact sentences front-load the core output and then give the implementation/quota context. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition of schema fields.

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 read-only reporting tool with six well-described parameters and no output schema, the description explains the output shape (table, ordering, gap computation) and cost behavior sufficiently. Minor gaps remain around exact gap semantics (calendar days, missing-date handling) and explicit alternative routing, but these do not block correct invocation.

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 83%, so the schema already documents most parameters. The description only reinforces the order default already in the schema (oldest to newest) and adds no new meaning; max_results, the one undocumented parameter, is not addressed in the description.

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 identifies a specific output — a chronological discography table with per-release gap-in-days versus the previous release — so an agent can infer the tool's core function. It does not name or contrast with similar sibling tools like artist_discography_timeline or artist_discography_stats, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 use for discography gap analysis by stating the output, and the pagination/quota note signals when it may be expensive. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it point to alternative tools for timeline or stats needs.

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