discogs_release

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole behavioral burden and discloses almost nothing: read-only status is only implied by 'details', and there is no mention of authentication (Discogs token), rate limits, or error behavior for invalid IDs. Listing return fields is mild context but largely duplicated by the output schema.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the most relevant returned fields. Nothing wasteful, though the fragment style leaves it terse to the point of under-specification.

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?

The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the price/have/want notes add a little value. But for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description should do more to explain input expectations and read-only semantics.

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% for the single required release_id, and the description never names or formats it. It does implicitly distinguish a release from a master by calling out master_id as a returned field, which is useful disambiguation, but ID type/format remains undocumented.

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 phrase 'Release details' identifies the resource and that it returns a full record, but there is no verb and no differentiation from siblings like discogs_listing or discogs_master_versions. The enumerated fields hint at a detail-fetch, yet an agent cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from the other discogs_* lookups.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any alternative tool. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the per-release lookup rather than search, master versions, or marketplace listings.

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