mb_search_artists

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Search for artists on MusicBrainz' without mentioning that it is a read-only operation, any rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response contains. Critical behavioral traits are omitted.

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 concise, consisting of a single sentence. However, it lacks any structure such as sections for usage or parameters. For a simple search tool, this might be minimally acceptable, but it does not earn its place by providing additional value beyond the tool name.

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 the tool's low complexity (two parameters, no output schema), the description should still cover basic completeness. It does not mention that the operation is safe/read-only, nor does it hint at the return format (e.g., list of artist objects). Sibling tools like mb_search_recordings have similarly terse descriptions, indicating a pattern, but the description is incomplete 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema itself provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no meaning to the 'query' or 'limit' parameters. It does not explain what 'query' should be (artist name, MBID?) or how 'limit' controls results. This is a significant gap.

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 verb 'Search', the resource 'artists', and the platform 'MusicBrainz'. This distinguishes it from other search tools like mb_search_recordings and mb_search_releases. However, it does not specify the type of search (e.g., by name or MBID) which could be more precise.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternative artist search tools from other platforms (discogs_search_artists, lastfm_search_artists, etc.). The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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