get_artist_discography

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the underlying GET endpoint and filtering concept but does not state whether this is a safe read-only operation, how pagination works, what the default result behavior is, or what the response shape looks like. An agent is left guessing about side effects and output characteristics.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then immediately notes the endpoint and filtering capability. Every word earns its place; it is concise without being ambiguous.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of closely related sibling tools, the description provides only the basic action and endpoint. It lacks guidance on usage, distinctions from get_artist_albums, output expectations, and practical behaviors like defaults or pagination, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably select and invoke the tool.

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 each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'album-type filtering' adds a small amount of semantic framing by connecting the endpoint name to the album_types/include_groups parameters, but it does not materially explain parameter 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 clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('discography for an artist'), and a distinguishing feature ('album-type filtering') backed by the underlying endpoint. It communicates what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_artist_albums, get_artist_singles, or get_artist_appearances.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_artist_albums, get_artist_singles, or get_artist_appearances. With many sibling tools in the same domain, the description leaves the selection decision entirely to inference and provides no exclusionary conditions.

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