front_to_back_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden and delivers: it explicitly states 'Read-only' and discloses the exact API quota (1 GET /albums/{id}, plus one paged track walk above 50 tracks). The side_minutes parameter description additionally clarifies that breaks are inserted after a track would overflow, making the core algorithm's behavior explicit.

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 with zero waste: the first defines the deliverable, the second discloses safety and quota cost. Information is front-loaded in priority order — function before cost — so an agent scanning the first sentence already knows what the tool does.

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?

All four parameters are documented in the schema, and the description covers function, output shape (ordered listing, start times, side breaks), read-only safety, and API cost. The only shortfall is the absence of sibling-routing guidance and edge-case behavior (e.g., a track longer than the side budget), which is minor given the schema's completeness and the tool's read-only nature.

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% — every parameter (album_id, market, side_minutes, response_format) has a meaningful schema description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The prose's 'configurable minutes-per-side budget' only echoes side_minutes and adds no format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 outcome — 'Full front-to-back listening plan' — and enumerates the exact deliverables: ordered track listing, cumulative start times, and vinyl-style side breaks. The 'one album' scope plus the 'configurable minutes-per-side budget' pin down both resource and behavior, clearly distinguishing it from album-analysis siblings like album_duration_report or album_track_explorer.

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 conveys clear context: this tool is for constructing a listening session plan for a single album with side breaks, and the quota note signals the cost profile before invocation. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, leaving sibling routing to inference across a very large toolset.

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