get_master_versions

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing action and provides no information about pagination behavior, filtering options, return format, or whether the operation is read-only. 'List' weakly implies a safe read operation, but the description does not go beyond the core purpose.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. Every word earns its place and the core action and resource are stated immediately.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only states the basic purpose. It does not explain the optional filters, pagination, or expected response shape, leaving an agent without enough context to confidently use advanced parameters or interpret results.

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 for the lack of parameter documentation. It provides only a minimal hint that the 'id' parameter refers to a Discogs master, but it does not explain the optional page, label, format, country, perPage, or released parameters. The description adds very little meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('List') and a specific resource ('release versions belonging to a Discogs master'), which makes the tool's core purpose unmistakable. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_master or get_release by the phrase 'release versions belonging to a Discogs master,' though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer that this tool is appropriate when release versions of a master are needed, rather than master metadata or a single release. However, the description provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternative sibling tools.

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