mb_search_artists

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on result ordering, result caps, or whether an empty query is permitted — so it contributes little behavioral context.

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 waste, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no structure to speak of because there is essentially one clause.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotation-independent detail, the description leaves out query syntax, pagination/limit behavior, and anything about the shape of results. An agent can guess, but nothing critical to correct invocation is documented.

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% and the description gives no parameter meaning at all. It does not explain that 'query' accepts MusicBrainz Lucene-style field syntax (e.g. artist:..., type:group) or what 'limit' defaults to or caps at, so an agent cannot construct a non-trivial query from this description.

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 and resource ('Search for artists') and names the source system (MusicBrainz), which together with the mb_ prefix makes it distinguishable from mb_get_artist and mb_search_releases. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with sibling tools like lastfm_search_artists or discogs_search_artists.

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 versus the many other artist-search tools in the sibling list (lastfm_search_artists, discogs_search_artists, genius_search, spotify_search). No mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or exclusions; the agent must infer everything from the name.

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