artist_live_albums_finder

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, and it does so well: it reveals that filtering is heuristic title-pattern matching rather than official release-type metadata, states the chronological ordering, and discloses the underlying paginated endpoint and its quota cost. It stops short of disclosing empty-result behavior, case-insensitivity of pattern matching, or the exact output shape.

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 filler: purpose and filtering rule first, then the quota/endpoint constraint. The 🟡 traffic-light notation is a compact, decision-relevant cost signal that earns its place in a quota-aware toolset.

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 simple 3-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, filter heuristic, ordering, and cost profile; response_format behavior is left to the schema's enum descriptions. Remaining gaps (behavior on zero matches, exact return shape) are minor and non-blocking for 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 coverage is 67% (artist_id and response_format are documented with helpful descriptions), so the schema does most of the work. The description adds the paginated-walk context that gives max_results meaning, but it adds no per-parameter detail beyond that. Mid-level coverage means the description need not fully compensate, and it doesn't.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a scoped resource (an artist's live releases), the exact filtering rule (titles matching live/unplugged/live-at patterns), and chronological ordering. The 'concert-record shelf' metaphor clearly differentiates it from sibling album-type tools like get_artist_singles and get_artist_albums, and the parenthetical pattern list pins down the matching logic precisely.

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 use case is clearly scoped — an explicit query for an artist's live releases/concert recordings — and the quota note ('one paginated /artists/{id}/albums walk') gives cost-aware selection context in a toolset that clearly tracks quota (quota_probe, backup_first siblings). However, it never names an alternative or states when not to use it, leaving sibling comparison to inference.

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