artist_era_sampler

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and provides real context: selection is deterministic, albums take precedence with earliest/fullest ordering, and exactly one paginated /artists/{id}/albums walk is used. It does not explicitly state that it performs no mutations, but the 'sampling plan' framing and quota disclosure make the read-only intent reasonably clear.

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 tightly written sentences front-load the main action and selection criteria, then add the quota note. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The description covers the algorithm, deterministic ordering, and API quota, and the schema covers all parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description only minimally indicates what the returned sampling plan looks like; edge cases such as artists with fewer releases than eras are also left unaddressed.

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 schema already documents artist_id, eras, per_era, and response_format. The description adds selection-rule context but no extra parameter-level semantics, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: it splits an artist discography into eras and deterministically picks representative releases. It also states the selection rule (albums first, earliest and fullest first) and labels itself a sampling plan, which distinguishes it from timeline/map/report siblings like artist_discography_timeline or artist_era_map.

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 phrase 'as a sampling plan' plus the quota line implies this tool is for producing a representative per-era selection rather than exhaustive discography output. However, it never states when to prefer it over similar planners such as album_representative_plan, decade_sampler_plan, or artist_era_map, nor when it would be inappropriate.

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