get_live_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the required SETLISTFM_API_KEY, describes the return format as a dict with a setlists list, and notes that the limit parameter maps to a single API page. It doesn't mention rate limits or explicitly confirm read-only behavior, but the 'Search' verb implies a safe operation.

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-structured and appropriately sized: a brief summary, a motivational use case, an API key note, a clear Args list, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the main 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?

Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: the return format, parameter semantics, and a prerequisite API key. The inclusion of the setlist structure (date, venue, city, country, songs) makes it fully self-contained for a search tool.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: query (optional venue/city keyword), artist (defaults to King Crimson), year (optional filter), and limit (max setlists, 1-20, one API page). This is comprehensive and adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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's function: 'Search live performance history / setlists via setlist.fm.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the context about King Crimson differentiates it from sibling tools like song_performance_history, which target individual song histories.

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 provides clear context: 'Useful for King Crimson given their extensive touring' and notes the API key requirement. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, stopping short of full alternative differentiation.

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