discogs_get_artist

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is free. The description adds nothing on top: no authentication requirement, no mention of the api_key parameter's role, no rate-limit or not-found behavior, and no indication of what the response contains.

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?

One short sentence that is fully front-loaded and contains no filler. Nothing in the sentence is wasted, even if the sentence as a whole is under-informative.

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 two-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum disclose the auth role of api_key and what an artist payload includes, and it should point to discogs_search_artists for ID discovery.

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 carry parameter meaning. 'By ID' partially covers artist_id, but api_key is never mentioned despite being a parameter an agent must reason about (likely required for auth), and no format or type expectations for artist_id are given.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource (get a Discogs artist) and the lookup key (by ID), which is enough to tell it apart from non-artist siblings like discogs_get_release or discogs_marketplace_stats. It never differentiates itself from discogs_search_artists, the sibling most likely to be confused with it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. An agent is not told that discogs_search_artists should be used first to resolve a name into the ID this tool requires, nor is any error condition on an unknown ID described.

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