setlist_resolve_concerts

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and meets it richly. It reveals pacing to setlist.fm's ~2 req/sec limit, the timeout fallback that returns pending:true instead of timing out, partial-failure isolation (errored items don't block the rest), the tourReference fallback semantics, and the attribution requirement (followable link, no nofollow). No contradiction with readOnlyHint.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the opening sentence, and the flow is logical: purpose → input/output → resolution logic → fallback behavior → rate limiting/timeout → error handling → batching limit → attribution. It is long, but given the tool's genuine complexity (batch resolution, fallback lookups, partial failures), most sentences earn their place. It's on the verbose edge, so not a 5.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values and it does so thoroughly: each result field (setlistId, url, eventDate, hasSongs, etc.), the summary object (matched, stubs, tourReferenced, unmatched, pending, errored), the hasSongs:false stub flag, the tourReference structure, and the match:null/error failure shape. For a tool this complex, nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how parameters alter behavior: city/venue narrow the search, and tourFallback's meaning is expanded well beyond its one-line schema note (same-tour reference setlist on a different date, labeled NOT the exact show). This added behavioral semantics justifies a 4.

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 first sentence states a specific verb+resource ('Resolve many concerts to their setlists') and immediately frames it against the alternative of doing 2+ calls per show, distinguishing this batched tool from the single-lookup siblings (get_setlist, get_artist_setlists) without needing to open their schemas. The input and output shapes are spelled out concretely.

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 gives explicit operational rules: keep batches ≤24, re-call with pending/errored items rather than letting them fail, and optionally set tourFallback: false to skip extra lookups. It contrasts with doing multiple single calls ('instead of 2+ per show'), though it never names a specific sibling tool as the alternative, which keeps it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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