Get discography

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and external-data behavior are covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields and the optional filter, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or rate-limit behavior.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return fields, followed by the only optional behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only retrieval tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it identifies the resource, the returned fields, and the optional filter. Minor gaps remain around pagination or output ordering, but these are not critical for basic invocation.

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 50%: band_id is documented in the schema, while release_types has no description. The description adds only 'optionally filter by type', which marginally clarifies the release_types parameter but does not explain the allowed enum values or the null default.

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 resource (a band's discography) and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool clearly distinct from siblings like get_album or get_band. It is clear but does not explicitly name alternatives, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 only usage guidance is that the type filter is optional. There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_album, search_albums, or get_band, nor are prerequisites beyond the schema's band_id note stated in the description.

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