discogs_search_artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as pagination, result limits, or whether authentication is required via the unexplained api_key. With the lower bar set by annotations, adding nothing beyond them merits only a 2.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though its brevity is arguably under-specification rather than optimal concision.

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 search tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description omits what results look like (artist list, pagination), how to authenticate, and how it differs from adjacent Discogs tools. Annotations cover only the safety profile, leaving too much unspecified.

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 should compensate but does not. The 'q' query is broadly implied by 'search', but there is no guidance on expected format (artist name text vs. ID) and no explanation of the optional api_key parameter at all.

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 (artists) scoped to Discogs, which separates it from discogs_get_artist by retrieval mode. However, it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like discogs_search_releases or discogs_get_artist, so the differentiation is implicit.

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 indication of when to use this versus discogs_get_artist, discogs_search_releases, or external search tools like mb_search_artists. Usage is only inferable from the tool name itself.

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