get_editions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the resolution strategy, requires DISCOGS_TOKEN, and describes the returned fields and match_method. It stops short of error handling or rate limits, but provides solid behavioral context beyond a simple list.

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 well-organized with clear sections for intro, resolution logic, args, and returns. It is succinct without fluff; every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 two-parameter tool with moderate complexity, the description covers the resolution algorithm, required token, input parameters, and return structure. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly, despite lacking an output schema.

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%, but the description includes an Args section explaining mbid as a MusicBrainz release-group ID from search_release and max_versions as a range (1-50). This adds essential semantics beyond the bare schema, making the parameters clear.

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 clearly states the tool lists physical editions/pressings of an album via Discogs, using a specific verb ('List') and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by detailing the Discogs master resolution process, making its purpose distinct from other album-related tools.

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 explains that the mbid comes from search_release and describes the resolution logic (preferring a Discogs relation, falling back to search). However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_incarnations or song_box_sets, leaving when-to-use vs alternatives implied rather than stated.

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