tag_get_info

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description need not restate safety. It does add value by disclosing the shape of the result (a short description and a usage-breadth indicator) in the absence of an output schema. It does not disclose whether unknown tags error or return empty, nor whether the lookup is case-sensitive or normalized, which matters given the free-form string input.

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 compact sentence fragment with no filler, and the core payload (what information is returned) is front-loaded. It is borderline terse rather than padded, which is the right failure mode for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 trivial one-parameter read with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description gives the essential answer: what data comes back. However, it leaves the exact return fields ambiguous ('how widely it is used' could be a count, a rank, or a percentile) and says nothing about behavior for unknown or misspelled tags, which is a realistic agent concern.

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?

The single 'tag' parameter is fully documented in the schema, including concrete examples ('chill', 'lo-fi', 'shoegaze'), so schema coverage is 100% and the baseline applies. The description adds only the abstract notion of tag semantics, with no extra detail about accepted formats, aliases, or matching behavior beyond what the schema states.

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 states what the tool returns for a given tag: a short description plus how widely the tag is used. That implicitly separates it from siblings like tag_get_similar or tag_get_top_artists, which return entities rather than tag metadata. It never names those siblings explicitly, and it phrases the action as 'What a tag means' rather than a direct verb like 'Get tag info', so the differentiation is inferential.

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 choose this tool over tag_get_similar, tag_get_top_artists, or tag_get_top_tracks, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. The only signal is implied: look up a tag when you need to understand what it denotes. That is not the same as explicit when/when-not guidance.

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