discogs_release

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions the data source (api.discogs.com) and that it is credential-free, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or response format details.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, no wasted words, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: first states the action and returned fields, second identifies the authoritative source.

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 simple retrieval tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description adequately lists the returned fields and data source. However, it lacks information about potential errors or response format, leaving minor gaps for an agent to infer.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'id' with a brief description 'Discogs release id'. The tool description does not add further semantics (e.g., format, example, or where to obtain the ID) beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get a Discogs release' and enumerates the returned data fields (artists, labels, formats, etc.), making the purpose explicit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like discogs_search or discogs_artist by focusing on a single release by ID.

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 implies usage when a specific Discogs release ID is known, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as discogs_search or discogs_master. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool guidance is provided.

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