get_tag_info

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 specific data returned and explains that lang affects the description language, but it does not discuss behavior for unknown tags or null lang. This is acceptable given the strong annotations, but not especially rich.

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 compact and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary followed by a minimal, directly relevant Args block. There is no filler or redundant restating of 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?

For a read-only, two-parameter tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description is nearly complete. It could be slightly improved by defining what 'reach' means or noting behavior when lang is omitted, but nothing essential is missing for invoking the tool.

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%, so the inline Args block carries the semantic weight. It explains that tag is the tag name and lang is an ISO 639 alpha-2 language code for the description. It does not explicitly mention that lang is optional, but the schema's default null provides that information.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('a tag's description, total uses and reach'), making the tool's function immediately clear. The sibling list confirms it is distinct from tag-related list tools like get_tag_top_artists and get_similar_tags, so an agent can select it without ambiguity.

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 clearly indicates this is for fetching tag metadata rather than tag-related charts or similar tags. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the scope is obvious enough that an agent can infer the right context.

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