search_artists

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While it mentions the tool is for searching and provides parameter guidance, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be needed, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what happens when multiple filters are combined. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 a clear purpose statement, usage guidelines, and parameter documentation in a bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place - the first two sentences establish purpose and usage context, while the parameter documentation is essential given the 0% schema coverage. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral context about the search operation itself (like result format hints, error conditions, or performance characteristics) that would be helpful for an agent.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for all 5 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents, provides enum values for artist_type and gender, specifies the format for country (ISO 3166-1 alpha-2), and indicates the default for limit. This adds substantial value 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 purpose: 'Search for artists with specific filters.' It specifies the resource (artists) and action (search with filters). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from all sibling tools beyond just 'search_entities' - there are other search tools like 'search_releases' and 'search_entities_fuzzy' that aren't contrasted.

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 excellent usage guidance with explicit alternatives: 'Prefer search_entities for simple name searches; use this when filtering by country, type, or gender.' This clearly tells the agent when to use this tool versus a sibling alternative, including specific filter criteria that warrant its use.

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