album_track_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a '[local-compute]' operation built from a paged /albums/{id}/tracks walk and states the quota, which helps an agent assess cost. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect-free, and the 'local-compute' label is somewhat ambiguous about whether any API request is actually performed.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the computed statistics and immediately gives quota and pagination context, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 main purpose, the specific statistics returned, and the quota/cost. Since there is no output schema, naming min/max/mean/median and longest-track callout partially compensates. It does not mention how market affects track availability or what happens on invalid album IDs, but these are minor for a stats 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter (album_id, market, response_format) already documented in the schema. The description adds only the album-scope context and the internal paginated walk, which does not materially enhance 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 clearly states the tool computes 'Track-length statistics for one album' with min/max/mean/median plus a longest-track callout, giving a specific verb, resource, and output. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the scope ('one album') and stats focus are unambiguous enough to separate it from related tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the description: an agent should use this when it needs track-length statistics for a single album. It also signals cost with 'Quota: 🟡 one paginated walk,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like album_duration_report or album_track_explorer.

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