setlist_get_artist_setlists

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true), description adds pagination behavior via 'p' parameter, ordering (most recent first), and crucial attribution requirements (clickable source link, fallback URL). This fully discloses relevant behavioral traits.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence gives core purpose, second adds pagination and URL inclusion, third addresses attribution. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 no output schema, description covers results contain URL and how to handle attribution. It mentions pagination and ordering. It could mention other typical fields (date, venue) but is sufficient for a simple list endpoint.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by linking pagination to the 'p' parameter, clarifying default page number, and noting the URL attribute in results.

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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'artist's setlists' with ordering 'most recent first'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the use of MusicBrainz ID (mbid) and the specific resource type.

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?

Description tells when to use (when you have an artist's mbid and need setlists) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools. However, the context of sibling tools provides implicit differentiation.

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