setlist_get_user_edited

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.