artist_name_disambiguator

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does well: it explains the multi-step behavior (typed search, candidate profiling, discography probe) and includes a specific quota ('1 /search + 1 small albums call per candidate'). It does not cover edge cases like no candidates found or explicit permissions, but the quota and operation flow are strong.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately followed by the operational behavior and quota. Every sentence contributes relevant information with no padding or repetition of schema details.

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 tool is moderately complex, and the description covers the workflow, quota, and the kinds of profile data returned. It does not spell out the exact output shape or failure behavior, but the response_format parameter and the candidate profiling detail provide enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. A slight gap is lack of handling guidance for zero or low-confidence candidates.

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 some contextual value by explaining that candidates are profiled and that there is a per-candidate quota, which indirectly relates to candidates_cap. However, it does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete goal, 'Resolves an ambiguous artist name,' and details the method: typed search plus candidate profiling with genres, active year span, and a sample release. This clearly distinguishes it from raw search tools by emphasizing the disambiguation purpose. It also names the output goal ('so you can pick the right ID'), which is specific and actionable.

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 description clearly implies when to use the tool: when an artist name is ambiguous and you need to select the correct ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'do not use when...', so it misses the highest bar, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for disambiguation rather than a simple search.

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