search

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 usefully adds that the return is a compact list and that detail requires a second call, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite page/per_page, nor about rate limits or result caps.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then adds two short sentences of practical detail with no filler. Slightly awkward wrapping/indentation but every sentence contributes information.

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-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description documents only about four parameters and omits pagination, result limits, and the meaning of the `type` selector. An agent could invoke it, but not confidently or completely.

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 15 parameters, so the description carries the burden and only partially meets it. It clarifies query semantics, the `year` range format ("1990-1995"), and the barcode/catno pinning use case, but leaves type, genre, style, track, format, country, release_title, page, and per_page entirely unexplained.

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 ('Search the Discogs database') and signals the mix of free-text query plus field filters. It partially differentiates from siblings by routing detail lookups to get_release/get_master/get_artist/get_label, but never says how it relates to collection-scoped siblings like find_in_collection or query_collection.

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 concrete strategy: combine `query` with field filters, use barcode or catno to pin down a specific pressing, and fetch details via the get_* tools. It stops short of exclusions (e.g. that this does not search the user's own collection), so it is clear context without full when-not guidance.

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