artist_discography_timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses [local-compute] behavior, the paginated endpoint walk behind the scenes, newest-first ordering, client-side trimming for since_year, and a concrete quota/cost estimate. These go well beyond what the name or schema reveal and give the agent accurate expectations about performance and side effects.

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?

Three dense sentences with zero filler: the first establishes purpose and source, the second covers ordering and filtering behavior, the third discloses cost. Key facts are front-loaded before the quota caveat, and every clause 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 5-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation context: endpoint, output columns, sort order, filter behavior, and quota impact. Combined with the schema's 80% coverage, an agent can select and call it correctly. The only gap is max_results semantics, which is minor since the parameter is optional and self-evident.

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 80%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuinely useful nuance — since_year filters client-side, and the table columns hint at output shape — which exceeds the schema's bare 'Only releases from this year onward'. However, max_results has no description in the schema and is not explained in the description either, leaving one parameter underdocumented.

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 deliverable — a chronological release table with defined columns (year, type, name, tracks) — and states the source endpoint (/artists/{id}/albums walk). The verb and resource are clear enough that an agent knows what it produces. However, it does not differentiate itself from closely related siblings like artist_album_timeline, artist_discography_explorer, or artist_singles_timeline, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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 through the purpose (want a year-sorted release table for an artist) and the quota signal ('one paginated walk... on the rate-limited queue'), which hints that this tool is costlier than a single-call op. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many discography-themed siblings.

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