Get band

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable structural detail about what the return contains (lineup grouped by status categories), but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error/not-found behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the return-content summary is front-loaded, and the sibling routing closes it. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully carries the return shape (profile fields and status-grouped lineup). It is nearly complete for a single-param detail tool, though it omits behavior on missing/invalid ids.

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 100% and the single band_id parameter is documented there (including 'from search_bands' and exclusiveMinimum), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (get band) and enumerates the returned content: profile fields (country, location, status, formation year, genres, lyrical themes, label) plus lineup grouped by status with roles and years. It also explicitly names get_band_bio as the sibling it is not, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly routes a specific sub-use to an alternative: 'Use get_band_bio for the biography.' This is clear when-to-use guidance. It doesn't enumerate other nearby siblings (get_discography, get_band_links, get_band_reviews), though those are functionally distinct, so it stops just short of full coverage.

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