Discogs: get artist

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation. The description adds no additional behavioral details such as rate limits, error handling, or response format. It does not contradict the annotation.

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, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. There is no redundant information or filler.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is adequately complete. It states the action and the key identifier. It could optionally mention that the response contains profile details, but this is implied. The readOnly annotation covers the safety aspect.

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?

The schema only defines artist_id as an integer with no description. The description clarifies that this is a Discogs artist ID, which adds essential meaning beyond the schema. However, it does not elaborate on how to obtain the ID or any formatting details, and with 0% schema coverage, more compensation would be ideal.

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 clearly states the action (fetch), resource (profile details for an artist), and method of identification (Discogs artist ID). It is specific and differentiates from siblings like discogs_get_artist_releases or discogs_search.

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 usage is implied: use this tool when you have an artist ID and need profile details. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives (e.g., discogs_get_artist_releases for releases), nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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