artist_era_map

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the clustering behavior, the output shape (one representative album, era spans), and the operational cost (' one paginated /artists/{id}/albums walk'). It does not state edge-case behavior or the selection criterion for the representative album, but the quota and API-walk disclosure is genuinely valuable beyond the schema.

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, both dense and useful: the first states the core function, the second gives quota/API-walk context. No fluff, no repetition of schema content, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description carries a heavy burden. It covers the algorithm, output shape, and quota, but leaves the 'representative album' selection criterion undefined and omits edge cases (artists with no quiet periods, single-release artists). Adequate for a competent agent, but not complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only modest value by back-referencing `gap_years` in the algorithm and implying the /artists/{id}/albums call that maps to artist_id and include_groups, but it does not add meaning the schema already lacks.

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 (cluster), a resource (an artist's releases), and a precise method: eras separated by quiet periods longer than `gap_years`, with one representative album per era and era spans. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like artist_era_sampler, artist_album_timeline, and artist_discography_timeline.

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 algorithm is specific enough that an agent can infer when to call it (when era segmentation by quiet periods is needed), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternatives. With many era-related siblings in the toolset, explicit routing would materially help.

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