Bulk resolve

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful operational details: the 100-input cap, the 'one API credit per line' cost, and the non-obvious discogs_id track-key format. However, it does not disclose output shape, error behavior, or what happens when an input cannot be resolved.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by the input-type selection mechanism, the discogs_id caveat, and the cost note. Every sentence adds distinct 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?

Input constraints are well covered: batch size, key types, item shapes, and a special-case id format. But there is no output schema and the description only vaguely promises 'canonical tracks plus cross-platform links'; it omits return structure, unmatched-input behavior, and error semantics, which matters for a bulk API with multiple input types.

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 coverage is only 50%, so the description meaningfully compensates. It explains that input_type 'picks the key', enumerates the platform id types, clarifies the track_name item shape, and adds the critical discogs_id caveat ('release ID plus track position, e.g. 2844-A') that the schema does not convey.

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 a specific verb ('resolve'), a concrete resource ('canonical tracks plus cross-platform links'), and a clear scope ('up to 100 inputs in one call'). It also distinguishes itself from single-item siblings like get_track or lookup_isrc by emphasizing bulk operation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool ('up to 100 inputs in one call') and explains how input_type selects the key, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over get_track, lookup_isrc, or get_platform_links, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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