discogs_search

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It does not state whether results are paginated (per_page exists but unexplained), whether any auth is required, or what the output looks like despite an output schema existing.

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?

Very short and front-loaded; every sentence carries information. The cryptic 'format e.g. Vinyl' is terse to the point of ambiguity, but nothing is wasted.

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?

Given 4 params at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It establishes the search context and type values but omits pagination, result shape expectations, and sibling-routing guidance an agent needs.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies type's accepted values (release|master|artist|label) and gives a format example, but leaves q, per_page, and format semantics vague and does not explain defaults or pagination.

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 (Search) and resource (Discogs database), which clearly distinguishes it from fetch/look/show siblings and from the item-level discogs_release/listing tools. The type enumeration further clarifies scope.

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 guidance on when to use this search vs discogs_release or discogs_master_versions. The description implies discovery but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions.

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