discogs_api_request

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the burden, and it does communicate scope and limitations like the JSON-only constraint and the checkout/payment exclusion. However, it does not disclose side effects of POST/PUT/DELETE calls, auth or rate-limit expectations, or how raw responses and errors are returned. It stays at the level of 'what it calls' rather than 'what happens when you call it'.

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?

The description is two short sentences, each carrying distinct information: core function, fallback rule, and exclusion. It is front-loaded and has no filler.

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 description adequately handles tool selection and high-level scope, which is the main risk for a generic fallback tool. Yet the absence of an output schema, no annotations, and no parameter details leaves invocation details such as constructing path/query/body and handling errors to the agent. For a generic API wrapper, this is adequate but not complete.

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% and the description adds no parameter-level guidance. Method and path are self-explanatory, but query and body formats are left entirely to the bare property names. This is a significant gap for a generic API caller.

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 description states a specific verb ('Call') and resource ('any JSON Discogs API v2 endpoint'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It also differentiates this generic fallback from the many named sibling tools by instructing to use named tools when available. This is a clear, distinguishing purpose.

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?

It gives an explicit selection rule: use this tool only when no named sibling covers the endpoint ('Use named tools when available'). It adds a concrete exclusion: checkout and payment are not API endpoints, which prevents agents from attempting unsupported requests. This is strong routing guidance.

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