lastfm_search_artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds nothing: it doesn't say what a search matches on, how many results come back by default, whether pagination exists, or — most importantly — whether the required api_key parameter must be supplied by the caller or is injected by the server.

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 no filler, which is the right shape. It is under-specified rather than padded — the fix is more substance, not trimming.

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 a 0%-documented three-parameter schema and no output schema, the description does far too little: result shape, match semantics, default limit, and the api_key handling are all unstated. The annotations cover only the read-only profile, leaving the operative details to guesswork.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely drops it. 'Search for artists' hints that `artist` is the query term, but `limit` (defaults? max?) and the credential-like `api_key` are left entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell whether it is expected to pass a key.

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') plus the backing service (Last.fm), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many adjacent artist-lookup siblings such as lastfm_artist_info, lastfm_chart_top_artists, discogs_search_artists, and mb_search_artists — the name alone carries that disambiguation.

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 guidance on when to pick this over lastfm_artist_info (exact lookup) or lastfm_chart_top_artists (browse/popularity), which are the obvious confusable alternatives in the same namespace. The agent must infer that 'search' means fuzzy name matching rather than lookup or chart browsing.

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