Discogs: get release

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description aligns with a safe read operation. It adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, just that it fetches full details and requires a release ID; no extra info on auth, rate limits, or payload shape is provided.

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?

A single, clear sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and resource.

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 simple fetch-by-ID tool with readOnly annotation and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but slightly vague about the extent of returned data ('full details') and doesn't mention response shape or any pagination concerns, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 already describes both parameters with 100% coverage (release_id and currency), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing the release_id role. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'full details for a single release' by Discogs release ID, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like discogs_get_master or discogs_get_artist.

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 the tool is for fetching a release when you have its release ID, but it does not explicitly compare with alternatives such as discogs_get_master or discogs_get_master_versions, nor does it state when not to use it.

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