Discogs: search the catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, matching the read-only nature of 'Search'. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context—it does not mention pagination, result format, rate limits, or any limitations. With the safety already covered by annotation, the description contributes only slightly beyond that, so a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and the second sentence efficiently enumerates filter types. No redundant wording or repetition of schema details.

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 search tool with 14 optional parameters and no output schema, the description explains the search domain and filter capabilities but omits what the response looks like (e.g., paginated list of matches) and does not mention pagination behavior. This leaves a moderate gap, though the tool's purpose as a search is unambiguous.

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 has only 43% coverage, leaving many parameters undocumented. The description compensates by listing most of the structured filters (artist, title, label, genre, style, year, format, country, barcode) and introduces 'free-text queries', which clarifies how to build a search. This adds meaning beyond the sparse schema descriptions.

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 'Search' and identifies the resource types (releases, masters, artists, labels), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling retrieval tools like discogs_get_release or mutation tools. It precisely states the tool's function and scope.

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 establishes that this tool is for searching the database with free-text and structured filters, providing clear context for its use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with direct getters (e.g., discogs_get_release) or state when to prefer search over exact-ID retrieval, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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