get_artist_correction

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the core behavioral intent—returning a canonical spelling—but does not disclose extra details such as fallback behavior if no correction exists. With no contradiction and strong annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 one focused sentence followed by a compact Args block. It front-loads the purpose and adds no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and comprehensive annotations, this description gives an agent everything needed to invoke it correctly. No critical invocation details are missing.

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 Args section fully documents the only parameter: "The name as written, possibly misspelled." This goes beyond the schema's bare title and tells the agent to pass the raw user-entered spelling rather than a pre-corrected value, which is essential for correct use.

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 identifies the action and resource: "Get Last.fm's canonical spelling for a misspelled artist name." This distinguishes it from artist metadata retrieval tools like get_artist and search_artists, even without naming them explicitly.

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 gives a clear use condition: call this when you have a possibly misspelled artist name and need Last.fm's canonical spelling. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the correction-specific purpose makes the invocation context clear.

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