resolve_artist

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly frames the operation as a read ('Get') and describes what the response contains: genres, every release, and slugs. It also adds a useful behavioral nuance: physical formats live at the album level, so this is the route to collector editions. It doesn't cover every possible edge case, but it discloses the key behavioral traits an agent needs.

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 compact yet rich: three sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place—purpose, usage examples, return-value summary, and the album-level physical format nuance all contribute unique value.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what the tool returns, how the output relates to resolve_music, and why physical-format seekers should use this route. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly without opening sibling schemas.

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 fully documents the slug parameter, including accepted forms. The description mentions slugs but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get an artist's profile and full discography.' It also clearly separates this from song-level tools by saying it covers a 'body of work rather than one song,' making the tool's role obvious even before considering siblings.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples: 'what albums has Stromae released', 'show me Radiohead's discography'. It names resolve_music as the alternative for turning slugs into links and implies song-level requests should go elsewhere, giving both positive and negative use cases.

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