discogs_search_releases

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to mention behavioral aspects such as rate limits, search result pagination, or how releases are matched. The description is overly simplistic.

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, minimal sentence that is concise but lacks necessary information. It is not overly verbose, but under-specification reduces its value.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An AI agent would lack crucial context about parameters like 'api_key' (required? usage?) and search behavior. More detail is needed for effective use.

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?

Despite 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, the tool description provides no additional meaning about the parameters such as 'q', 'artist', 'type', 'format', 'genre', 'year', or 'api_key'. No parameter usage details or constraints are mentioned.

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 the action ('Search') and resource ('music releases on Discogs'), effectively differentiating it from sibling tools like discogs_search_artists or discogs_get_release.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like discogs_get_release for precise release data or discogs_search_masters for master releases. No exclusions or context provided.

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