setlist_search_setlists

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

Annotations carry only readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context on top: the at-least-one-filter constraint (which contradicts the schema's required:0, so it is essential), the multi-city span behavior, the API-terms attribution requirement ('followable attribution — no nofollow'), and the fallback to https://www.setlist.fm when no url is present. These are operational traits annotations cannot express.

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?

All seven sentences earn their place: purpose, filter rule, disambiguation, alternative pattern, stub-setlist detection, attribution, and URL fallback — with the purpose front-loaded in sentence one. The weakness is structural: everything runs as a single dense paragraph with em-dash asides, which is harder for an agent to scan than a short bulleted breakdown would be.

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 15-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the decision-critical response fields (songCount, setCount, hasSongs, url) and the attribution behavior. But pagination is undocumented: the p parameter exists in the schema while the description never states page size, how to detect the last page, or how results are wrapped in the response, so an agent paging through results would be guessing.

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, and the description pushes beyond it by explaining how parameters combine: artistName + date needs a city/venue qualifier to pin the exact show, and omitting the artist with venueName/venueId + date returns every performer at a venue. It states the at-least-one constraint that the schema cannot, since all 15 params are individually optional. It adds nothing on p, view, or lastUpdated, but those are already well described in the schema.

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 opening sentence 'Search setlist.fm for concert setlists' names a specific verb and resource in one line. The description also documents a second distinct usage mode ('list EVERY performer at a venue or festival that day'), which sets it apart from sibling search tools (search_artists, search_venues) and lookup tools (get_setlist, get_artist_setlists) without the agent having to open their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit in-tool guidance: the at-least-one-filter rule, a concrete disambiguation strategy ('artistName + date can span multiple cities, so add cityName/cityId or venueName/venueId'), and an alternative invocation pattern for venue-based browsing. However, it never names sibling tools for the when-not cases (e.g., get_setlist for a known ID, get_artist_setlists for a known artist), so exclusion routing is implied rather than explicit.

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