discogs_get_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get a Discogs release by ID', implying a read operation but not explicitly stating it is safe, idempotent, or what authentication might be required (api_key is optional). No behavioral details like rate limits or response format are disclosed.

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 short sentence, front-loaded and efficient. It contains no unnecessary words. However, it may be slightly underspecified for completeness, but conciseness is high.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not cover parameter details, output structure, or authentication context. This leaves gaps for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 provide parameter meaning beyond names. It does not explain 'release_id' (e.g., what type of ID) or 'api_key' (optional, purpose). The description adds no value over the schema parameter 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 'Get a Discogs release by ID' clearly states the action (get), the resource (Discogs release), and the identifier method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discogs_search_releases (search by query) and discogs_get_artist (different resource).

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this tool is for known release IDs, while discogs_search_releases should be used for searching. No usage context or prerequisites are given.

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