get_collection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results come 'straight from Discogs' (live API, subject to paging and rate considerations) and are paginated one page at a time, with the cache tools noted as the paging-avoidance alternative. It does not state auth requirements or rate limits explicitly.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior before the alternative-tool routing. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

Annotation coverage and no output schema mean return values needn't be explained, but with 6 undocumented parameters the description is thin on how to drive paging (per_page defaults, page/sort interaction) and auth (username). Adequate for orientation, incomplete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It explains only folder_id=0 = all; page, per_page, sort, sort_order, and username are left entirely undocumented, and the sort/sort_order defaults are only visible in the schema. Partial compensation for a significant gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (fetch one page of the Discogs collection) and immediately clarifies the folder_id=0 semantics ('folder 0 = all'). It explicitly names sibling tools (query_collection, collection_summary) and positions itself apart from them as the raw API path.

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 an explicit routing rule: for whole-collection questions, prefer the cache tools because they avoid API paging. This names concrete alternatives and the condition that selects them, which is exactly what an agent needs to choose between get_collection and the cache tools.

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