audiobooks_by_author

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses client-side sorting semantics, the release-date fallback when Spotify doesn't expose one (unknown dates sort last), the chapter-count length proxy, the US/UK/CA/IE/NZ/AU market restriction, and a one-GET /search-call quota. It omits read-only safety and failure/empty-result behavior, but these are minor against the concrete operational details it does reveal.

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 zero filler: purpose+sort mechanics up front, then the market gate, then quota. Every sentence carries distinct operational information, and the structure front-loads the core function before constraints.

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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the operation, the tricky sort edge cases, the market restriction, and the quota cost — all genuinely useful calling context. Remaining gaps (result shape, behavior on unknown authors) are mitigated by the response_format parameter and the simplicity of the query, so the overall picture is 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description earns extra credit on the `sort` parameter: it explains that release dates apply only 'when Spotify exposes one', that unknown dates sort last, and that length uses chapter count as a proxy — nuances the schema's one-line enum description lacks. The other parameters are adequately served by 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 function — an author catalogue built via the `author:` search filter — plus the client-side sorting it applies. The verb+resource (list audiobooks by author) is clear and distinguishes it in scope from generic siblings like search_audiobooks and library-based get_saved_audiobooks, though it never names a sibling 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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; there is no mention of preferring this over search_audiobooks or get_saved_audiobooks for broader searches. The usage context is implied by 'Author catalogue', and the market gate is a constraint rather than routing advice. An agent must infer the selection logic.

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