Discogs: list artist releases

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already declares the operation as read-only, so the safety profile is known. The description adds that the response includes both releases and masters, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sortability, or response structure beyond that, so no additional behavioral traits are revealed beyond what the annotation and the basic description supply.

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, focused sentence that states the verb and resource clearly. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant information. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the level of detail provided.

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?

With 5 parameters, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description is too minimal to be considered complete. It does not explain return value shape, pagination/sorting semantics, or clarify the meaning of artist_id and sort parameters. The description only covers the basic resource, leaving significant gaps for a tool with this complexity.

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 only 40% (only page and per_page have descriptions). The description does not compensate for the missing parameter details: artist_id is required but has no description, and sort/sort_order are enums without semantic explanation. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the agent is left to infer from types and names, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 'List releases and masters credited to an artist' clearly states the action (list) and the resource (artist's releases and masters). It is specific enough to convey the tool's core function, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like discogs_get_master_versions or discogs_search, which could overlap in certain use cases.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need an artist's discography. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context is implied by the tool name and description, but no concrete when-to-use or when-not-to-use scenarios are given.

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