get_credits

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explains that per-track credits are 'resolved from the recording level in MusicBrainz,' includes a 'deduplicated album roster,' and describes the selection logic when release_mbid is omitted. This goes beyond a generic 'get' and gives meaningful insight into underlying processes.

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 efficiently structured with separate Args and Returns sections, front-loading the primary purpose. It contains no redundant phrasing, though it is longer than necessary for a simple getter. The extra detail is justified by the need to explain resolution logic and parameters.

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?

The description is self-contained: it explains the main purpose, parameter origins and defaults, and lists the exact keys in the returned dict. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden and fulfills it, making the tool's behavior and inputs clear enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining mbid as 'MusicBrainz release-group ID (from search_release)' and release_mbid as an optional specific release with a clear fallback behavior. This provides complete semantic meaning beyond the raw type 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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Get performer and production credits for an album (release group).' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search_release, get_artwork, and get_live_history by focusing on credit resolution from MusicBrainz recording levels.

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 Args section states that mbid comes from search_release, providing a clear use case and workflow context. It also explains the optional release_mbid and the fallback to a representative official release, giving practical guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool, but the guidance is sufficient.

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