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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description discloses an important attribution behavior: results carry a setlist.fm URL, must be cited as clickable sources, and require a fallback link when URL is absent. This adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The attribution policy is stated in a compact way. The only minor redundancy is the extra emphasis on 'clickable' and 'no nofollow', but it remains useful and not bloated.

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 read-only lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough for correct invocation: the required identifier, the presence of a URL in results, and the exact attribution behavior. It does not enumerate every returned artist field, but the core operational and licensing requirements are covered.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description only restates that the lookup uses the MBID and adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so baseline 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 the operation: 'Get a setlist.fm artist by their MusicBrainz ID (mbid).' It names the specific resource, the identifier needed, and the scope, which distinguishes it from name-based sibling tools like setlist_search_artists.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool when you have an MBID and need the artist's setlist.fm record. However, the description does not explicitly name alternatives such as setlist_search_artists for when an MBID is unavailable, so the routing guidance is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond annotations: pagination via 'p', most-recent-first ordering, inclusion of a setlist.fm url, and the required attribution behavior with a nofollow prohibition. This gives agents actionable presentation guidance.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core operation, pagination detail, and a critical attribution instruction. The most important information is front-loaded and the citation requirement is stated precisely without excessive length.

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 read-only paginated list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the essential invocation details and even adds important source-attribution constraints. With no output schema, it does not enumerate the full result fields, but the 'view' parameter schema partially addresses response shape.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters. The description reinforces the pagination behavior of 'p' and the role of 'mbid', but adds no substantial meaning beyond the 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get an artist's setlists') and includes the key identifier (MusicBrainz ID) plus ordering ('most recent first'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like setlist_get_setlist or setlist_search_setlists.

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 the tool should be used when you already have an artist's mbid and need their setlists, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternative tools or provide exclusions. Usage context is clear but not fully articulated.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks the operation as safe, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: results include a setlist.fm url, attribution must be followable with no nofollow, and there is a fallback link requirement. No contradiction with the annotation exists.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core operation comes first, followed by the essential attribution and fallback instructions. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 ID-based lookup, the schema covers all parameters, the annotation covers safety, and the description covers the key output field needed for proper citation. The description does not enumerate the full city response shape, but that is a minor gap without 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 100%, so the schema already explains both geoId and the view enum in detail. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, which meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states 'Get a city by its geoId' with a specific verb and resource, making the operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like setlist_search_cities, but the ID-based lookup is reasonably distinct.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setlist_search_cities or how to obtain a geoId. The only conditional instruction is about citation behavior, not tool selection. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses substantive behavioral details: how songs are nested in sets, what fields like tape/cover/with/info mean, and the API attribution requirement including the nofollow prohibition. This gives the agent meaningful operational context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 long but every sentence carries essential information: the purpose, the response structure, field semantics, and citation requirements. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized so that nested details follow logically without repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining the sets.set[] structure, encore/name fields, song attributes, and URL behavior. It also covers the unique attribution requirement, making the tool's expected output and usage complete for a simple ID-based read operation.

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 already documents both setlistId and the view enum with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond implying the setlistId identifies the resource, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a setlist.fm setlist by its ID, including the full song list and event details.' It makes the tool's core function unmistakable and distinguishes it from the many search/get siblings by emphasizing lookup 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 clearly establishes that this tool is for fetching an already-known setlist by ID, which provides clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly name alternatives like setlist_search_setlists or setlist_get_setlist_version, but the 'by its ID' framing makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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

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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint: true, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It goes well beyond by explaining response structure, field semantics like 'tape' not actually being performed, cover/with/info meanings, and the required attribution behavior including a fallback URL. No contradictions with annotations.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The rest is lengthy but every clause carries useful information about response shape or attribution, though it could be tightened without losing value.

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?

With no output schema, the description effectively documents the return structure, key song/set fields, and presentation requirements. It covers the input origin, response semantics, and attribution obligations, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and present results 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including the view enum behavior. The description adds extra meaning by explaining that versionId comes from a setlist's versionId field, which helps the agent understand where to obtain the value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: get a specific historical setlist version by its version ID. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling setlist_get_setlist by emphasizing 'historical version' and the wiki-edit context, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 clearly explains when to use this tool: when you have a versionId from a setlist's versionId field. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear and sufficient for correct routing.

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

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: results include a setlist.fm URL, the URL must be cited as a clickable source link, nofollow is prohibited, and a fallback URL is provided when no url is present. This is useful operational guidance that annotations do not convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by directly actionable attribution instructions. Each sentence earns its place; there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only profile lookup, the description covers the essential invocation context and adds the critical attribution requirement. It does not enumerate all possible response fields, and there is no output schema, but the view parameter description in the schema helps fill the response-shape gap.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents both userId and view. The tool description adds little parameter-level meaning beyond restating that userId is the setlist.fm username, which is already present in the 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 action ('Get'), the resource ('a setlist.fm user's public profile'), and the lookup key ('by their userId'). It differentiates from sibling tools like setlist_get_user_attended and setlist_get_user_edited by emphasizing the public profile itself.

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 gives clear context for when the tool is relevant—fetching a user's public profile by username—but does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool or exclude alternatives. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with the related user-attended and user-edited endpoints.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: pagination, the presence of a setlist.fm URL in results, and the attribution requirement (clickable, no nofollow, with a fallback URL). This enriches the agent's understanding without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 compact: the first sentence states purpose, the second adds pagination, and the third covers attribution obligations. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 covers the core action, pagination, and the non-obvious attribution requirement, which is the main contextual risk for this tool. It does not detail the full response envelope, but the schema's view parameter explains response shapes and the readOnly annotation covers safety.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces that `p` controls pagination and that results include URLs; the schema already documents userId, p, and the view enum fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get the concerts a setlist.fm user has marked as attended.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like setlist_get_user_edited and setlist_search_setlists, which cover different actions or scopes.

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 makes the intended use case clear—retrieving attended concerts for a user—and adds practical pagination guidance via `p`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the read-only retrieval context is unambiguous.

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

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavioral guidance beyond that: results include a setlist.fm URL that must be presented as a clickable, followable source link, with a fallback to setlist.fm when no URL exists. This attribution requirement is non-obvious and valuable for correct caller behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence carries distinct information: what the tool returns, how pagination works, and how to handle the returned URLs. There is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 read-only annotation, complete parameter schema, and straightforward resource, the description covers the essential operational details: purpose, pagination, and attribution obligations. The lack of an output schema is partially compensated by the explicit mention of the URL field and fallback behavior, though a bit more about response shape could make it fully complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly, including the `view` enum semantics. The description adds only a light nod to pagination ('Paginated via `p`') and attribution context, which does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond the 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 states a specific action ('Get') on a specific resource ('the setlists a setlist.fm user has created or edited'), making it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like setlist_get_user_attended and setlist_search_setlists. The verb-plus-resource construction is precise and unambiguous.

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 clearly identifies the target resource and mentions pagination via `p`, giving an agent enough context to know when this tool is relevant. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the phrasing 'created or edited' naturally distinguishes it from attended-setlist queries.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safe read nature. The description adds useful beyond-annotation context: results include a setlist.fm url, the url must be cited as a clickable followable attribution link, and there is a fallback to https://www.setlist.fm when no url is present.

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 three sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then gives concise attribution rules that earn their place.

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 ID lookup, the description covers the purpose, the presence of the url field, and the required attribution behavior. It does not describe not-found behavior, but annotations and the detailed parameter schema cover safety and invocation, and the url disclosure compensates for the lack of 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 100%, and both venueId and view are already well documented in the input schema. The description only echoes 'by its ID' and adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a setlist.fm venue by its ID.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search tools like setlist_search_venues and from setlist retrieval tools like setlist_get_venue_setlists, even though it does not name them explicitly.

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 the intended usage: call this when you already have a venue ID and want venue details. However, it gives no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance about when to prefer setlist_search_venues or setlist_get_venue_setlists.

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

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ordered newest-first, pagination is via p, results carry a setlist.fm url, and attribution must be a clickable followable source link with a fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: core action and ordering, pagination and attribution requirement, fallback link behavior. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description provides the key return detail (the setlist.fm url) plus attribution handling, while the schema covers all parameters and annotations cover read-only safety. It does not enumerate all response fields, but the view parameter's schema description already explains compact/full shapes, so nothing critical is missing.

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 100%; all three parameters (venueId, p, view) are already documented with types, enums, defaults, and descriptions. The tool description only reinforces p for pagination and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the 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?

Opens with a specific verb+object ('Get setlists performed at a venue') and identifies the key input as venueId, with explicit ordering 'most recent first'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like setlist_get_venue (venue details) and setlist_search_setlists (search).

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?

Clear context: use this tool when you already have a venue ID and want that venue's setlists, paginated via p. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying the endpoint, output structure, and error distinctions. It confirms read-only nature consistent with annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, includes output structure. No wasted words; every sentence is informative.

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 no parameters, simple behavior, and rich annotations, the description fully covers the tool's functionality. Output is described adequately without needing 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?

No parameters exist, and schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter info. Baseline score of 4 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 the tool's purpose: confirming API key and connectivity by calling the setlist.fm countries endpoint and reporting specific fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (data retrieval) by being a health check.

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 for verifying API configuration before other operations, but does not explicitly state when to use or alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools makes the purpose clear.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: tolerates various URL formats (http/https, www, trailing slash, query/fragment, missing .html), pure local parsing, and error condition if no ID parsed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence immediately conveys the core purpose. No redundant information. Efficiently structured with front-loaded key action.

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 parsing tool with one parameter, complete annotations, and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage, parameters, behavior, and return format ('Returns {setlistId}'). No gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'url' parameter described. The description adds value by providing an example URL format and specifying tolerances (http/https, with/without www, etc.), going beyond the schema's basic description.

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 explicitly states the tool parses a setlist ID from a setlist.fm URL and returns it as {setlistId}. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which likely expect an ID directly, not a URL.

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 explicit when-to-use: 'paste a link instead of hunting for the ID' and identifies downstream tools (setlist_get_setlist / setlist_mark_attended). It also specifies what URLs are rejected (artist/venue) and that it is pure local parsing with no network call, giving clear usage boundaries.

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

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

Discloses idempotency (matches annotation), dry-run preview, verification step after confirm, and authentication requirement. Goes beyond annotations by explaining the verification and attribution requirements.

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?

Concise yet thorough: each sentence adds value (purpose, auth, idempotency, dry-run, verification, result handling, attribution). No redundant or 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?

Complete for a simple toggle tool with annotations. Explains return value (url with attribution), authentication, idempotency, and dry-run. No missing aspects.

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?

Adds context to both parameters: setlistId source (from search/resolve) and confirm flag behavior (dry-run vs. actual). Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3; description adds meaningful enhancement.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records attendance on the user's account, uses setlist ID, and distinguishes from siblings like setlist_unmark_attended. It specifies authentication via session cookie and the dry-run vs. confirm behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to mark attendance, with dry-run preview option. Provides context on idempotency and confirmation flag. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but gives sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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

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

Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context: rate limiting with pending results, fallback to artist lookup, tour reference behavior, attribution requirements, and stub handling. No contradictions with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and each sentence adds necessary detail. Slightly long but justified given complexity. Would benefit from slight trimming, but still well-structured.

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 complexity of the tool (batch resolution, stubs, tour references, rate limiting, attribution), the description covers all essential aspects. No output schema, but output fields are enumerated. Completeness is high for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: explains the purpose of each input field, defaults for tourFallback, and batching limits. Adds value but not essential for understanding due to thorough schema descriptions.

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 it resolves multiple concerts to setlists in one call, reducing redundant API calls. It specifies input (up to 24 {artist, date, city?, venue?}) and output fields, effectively distinguishing from siblings like setlist_get_artist_setlists which handles single artist lookups.

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 explicitly says to use this for batch resolution ('instead of 2+ per show') and mentions usage limits (≤24, pacing to 2 req/sec). It does not explicitly state when not to use, but context with sibling tools implies alternatives. Clear guidance on when to use given.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the operation is read-only. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results include a setlist.fm URL that must be cited as a clickable source link, attribution must be followable (no nofollow), and there is a fallback link requirement when no URL is present. This is genuinely useful operational information not available in the annotations or schema.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the operation, the second explains downstream usage, and the last two cover required attribution behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers search modes, key output fields (mbid and url), downstream tool routing, and an unusual attribution requirement. It does not describe pagination or empty-result behavior, but the schema already documents the pagination parameter and the tool's simplicity plus readOnlyHint make this a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that artistName and artistMbid are alternative search modes ("by name or MusicBrainz ID"), and that the returned mbid is the key output to pass to other tools. This goes beyond the individual parameter descriptions in the 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 states a specific verb and resource: "Search setlist.fm for artists by name or MusicBrainz ID." It clearly explains what the tool returns (matching artists with their mbid) and differentiates it from downstream artist tools by telling the agent to use the mbid with setlist_get_artist or setlist_get_artist_setlists.

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 for when to use this tool: when searching for artists by name or MusicBrainz ID. It also gives explicit downstream guidance by naming the follow-up tools that consume the returned mbid. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling search tools like setlist_search_setlists, but the resource-specific wording makes the intended use clear.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond it: results include a setlist.fm url, attribution must be followable and not nofollow, and there is a specified fallback URL when no url is present. This is useful operational guidance not present in the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the purpose appears in the first sentence, then downstream usage, then attribution requirements. Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundant or filler content. The structure is easy to scan and act on.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the key return values (geoId and url) and explains how to use them. It also covers the attribution fallback. It does not describe pagination or the full result set shape, but the input schema provides the p parameter and the core usage is well covered, so the description is close to complete for this tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the parameters are already well documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond saying the search is by name and/or location, which maps loosely to the name/state/country/stateCode parameters. It does not need to compensate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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 verb (search), resource (cities), and the search criteria (name and/or location). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like setlist_search_artists and setlist_search_venues by explicitly narrowing to cities and explaining the returned geoId is used as cityId downstream.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when you need to find a city and obtain its geoId. It also explains how the result feeds into setlist_search_setlists, setlist_search_venues, and setlist_get_city. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare against other search tools, but the resource-specific purpose makes the usage context fairly clear.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates safety, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: results must be cited with a followable link to setlist.fm, with a defined fallback when url is missing. This is a concrete presentation behavior that affects agent output. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: three sentences, each with clear purpose. The first sentence states the core functionality, the second connects it to another tool, and the third handles attribution requirements. No redundant or filler content.

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 one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the returned content, the ISO code usage, and the attribution edge case. It would benefit from a little more detail on response shape or pagination, but the schema and simplicity of the tool make this adequate.

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 100%, with the single view parameter thoroughly documented in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the schema already carries that burden, so the baseline score 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 states a specific action and resource: 'List all countries supported by setlist.fm, with their ISO country codes.' It also names the downstream consumer, setlist_search_setlists, which helps distinguish this tool from country search or venue/city tools. The purpose is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to use the result: use a returned code as countryCode in setlist_search_setlists, and how to attribute results. It does not discuss when not to use this tool, but the bounded listing purpose and clear downstream usage provide sufficient guidance.

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

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden — and it delivers. It guarantees result invariants ('Every result includes songCount, setCount, and hasSongs') enabling stub filtering without a second fetch, mandates followable attribution ('their API terms require followable attribution — no nofollow'), and specifies a fallback URL when a result lacks one. No contradiction with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Seven sentences, each earning its place: purpose front-loaded first, then filter rules, two usage strategies, result invariants, attribution requirement, and fallback URL. No repetition of schema content, no filler, and the densest information (the disambiguation rule) is placed early.

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?

Exceptionally thorough for a 15-parameter search tool: covers filter constraints, disambiguation, an alternative usage mode, result field guarantees, and attribution obligations. The notable gap is pagination — the `p` parameter implies pages, but the description never describes the response envelope or how to navigate pages — and empty/error responses are not addressed. With no output schema, the description bears the return-value burden and covers the important fields but not the overall shape.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds cross-parameter semantics the per-parameter schema cannot express: a mandatory-filter constraint ('provide at least one') absent from the schema's required list, a disambiguation recipe (artistName + date combined with city/venue identifiers), and an all-performers-at-a-venue mode via venue + date with artist omitted. This meaningfully exceeds the schema's individual field descriptions.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Search setlist.fm for concert setlists.' The multi-filter framing ('Filter by any combination of artist, venue, city, country, tour, date, or year') makes it unmistakably a search tool, clearly distinct from ID-fetch siblings like setlist_get_setlist and artist/venue-specific fetches. The tool's role is evident before any schema is opened.

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?

Provides explicit operational guidance: at least one filter is mandatory, filter combinations disambiguate results ('artistName + date can span multiple cities, so add cityName/cityId or venueName/venueId to pin the exact show'), and a distinct venue-day mode is documented ('Omit the artist and pass venueName/venueId + date to list EVERY performer'). It does not, however, explicitly state when to prefer a sibling tool (e.g., get_setlist for a known setlist ID), leaving the when-not case implicit.

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

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

readOnlyHint=true已表明只读，描述额外披露了结果包含setlist.fm url，以及展示时必须提供可点击、可跟随的归属链接（no nofollow），无url时回退到https://www.setlist.fm。这是超出注解的实质行为约束，非常有价值。稍欠的是未说明无结果返回时的行为，但不足以降为3分。

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?

三句话，零冗余：第一句说明功能，第二句说明返回值与下游工具，第三句说明归属要求。关键信息前置，结构紧凑，每句都承担任务。

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?

对于无输出schema、只读、且所有参数已有schema描述的搜索工具，描述已涵盖核心返回值（venue ID、url）、下游用法和特殊归属约束。缺少对无结果或错误情况的说明，但整体对于一个搜索工具而言足够完整。

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?

8个参数在schema中都有描述，覆盖率100%，因此基线为3。描述仅将参数归纳为'name and/or location'，并未在schema之外增加参数级细节或组合规则，因此保持在3分。

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?

描述以具体动词和资源开头：'Search setlist.fm for venues by name and/or location'，并说明返回匹配场馆及其venue ID。这直接将其与sibling如setlist_search_artists、setlist_search_setlists区分开，无需推测。

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?

描述明确建议与setlist_get_venue或setlist_get_venue_setlists配合使用，提供了后续操作路径。虽然没有明确列出'何时不用'，但'by name and/or location'给出了清晰的使用上下文，且工具命名已足够分化。

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

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

Description adds value beyond annotations: it mentions idempotency explicitly ('Idempotent: a no-op if not currently attended'), the dry-run vs confirm behavior, authentication via session, and attribution requirements. Annotations already included destructiveHint and idempotentHint, so the description enriches context.

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?

Concise at 4 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence earns its place including the attribution note. No wasted words, though slightly dense.

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 is simple with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers input behavior, idempotency, dry-run, authentication hint, and attribution. It provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly without additional queries.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds meaning: explains that confirm must be true for actual removal (otherwise dry-run preview) and setlistId is the identifier. This clarifies parameter behavior beyond schema descriptions.

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 action ('Remove a show from YOUR attended list'), the resource ('setlist.fm'), and the reverse relationship ('reverses setlist_mark_attended'). It specifies the setlist ID parameter and distinguishes from sibling tools like mark_attended.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: it's the reverse of mark_attended, and explains the confirm parameter for dry-run or actual removal. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to all siblings, it's clear enough for an AI agent.

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