get_artist_albums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states a simple listing action. It doesn't mention pagination (limit), the include_groups filter, default behavior, or anything about the response shape. For a read-only tool this is minimally acceptable, but it doesn't go beyond the obvious.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It's appropriately short for a simple listing tool, though it could have incorporated a hint about filtering options. The front-loading of the core action is good, but given the tool's multiple parameters, slightly more detail would not hurt.

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 tool with 3 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too terse. It doesn't explain that include_groups can extend beyond albums/singles, that pagination is available, or how this fits into a larger workflow. An agent might not know about the filtering capability unless it opens the schema, which the description should ideally supplement.

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 each parameter (id, limit, include_groups) with clear meanings and defaults. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides, 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 'List an artist's albums and singles' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_artist, get_album, and get_track. The resource scope (artist's albums and singles) is unambiguous and immediately tells an agent what this tool is for.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 50+ sibling tools, an agent is left to infer the use case from the name alone. There's no mention of when to default to this rather than, say, get_album for a specific album or get_artist for artist info. This is a clear gap.

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