artist_discography_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds genuine non-obvious context: computation happens locally, and the tool performs an underlying paginated API walk with a disclosed quota cost. This is more informative than typical descriptions. It stops short of explicitly declaring read-only/no-mutation, though the 'walk' framing strongly implies a read traversal.

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 the purpose as a compact metric list, and the second discloses quota in a single parenthetical. Every clause earns its place; there is no fluff, repetition of schema content, or vague filler.

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?

Though there is no output schema, the listed metrics act as a de-facto output contract, and the response_format parameter covers prose-vs-json delivery. Quota and local-compute cover operational expectations. Missing pieces are an explicit read-only declaration and edge-case behavior (artist not found, empty discography), which would be needed for a 5 but are minor for an analytics tool.

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%, so artist_id ('Spotify artist ID'), include_groups (allowed values and default spelled out), and response_format (enum with per-value semantics) are already fully documented in the schema. The description's metric list only loosely maps to include_groups and adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct here.

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 resource ('discography shape for one artist') and lists concrete computed outputs: release counts by type, first/latest release, per-year rate, and longest silence gap. These metrics are distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like artist_discography_timeline or artist_release_type_breakdown. It lacks an explicit verb ('compute/report' is implied) and does not name a sibling, so it falls just 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 [local-compute] tag and quota disclosure (' one paginated /artists/{id}/albums walk, typically several API calls') provide cost/runtime context that helps an agent decide whether to invoke the tool. However, there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and none of the many competing discography siblings (artist_discography_explorer, artist_discography_search, get_artist_discography) are named or routed around.

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