APIbase

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) and openness. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating specific data fields returned (tags, ratings, external links, life span, area), which helps the agent understand the information richness without contradicting the annotations.

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 optimally concise—single sentence with action front-loaded ('Get detailed artist info'), followed by an em-dash listing specific return fields. Zero redundancy; every word 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (single parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers functionality by listing returned data categories. For a lookup tool, this level of detail is sufficient, though explicit mention of the sibling search relationship would achieve completeness.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents the 'mbid' parameter (UUID format with example). The description reinforces this by mentioning 'MusicBrainz ID', meeting the baseline expectation for high-coverage schemas without adding significant additional semantics.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('detailed artist info'), and exact identifier type ('MusicBrainz ID'). It lists specific returned fields (tags, ratings, external links, life span, area) that clearly scope the tool's function and implicitly distinguish it from the sibling search tool.

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?

While the description implies usage through the MusicBrainz ID requirement, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this lookup tool versus the sibling 'music.artists.search'. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving the agent to infer the ID-based workflow.

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