get_audiobook

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly reveal the market restriction (only US/UK/Canada/Ireland/NZ/Australia), which is valuable. However, it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or authentication requirements. For a read-only 'get' operation, the market caveat is key, but other behaviors remain opaque.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action first, then adds the essential market constraint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or fluff.

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 adequately covers the core action and the key market limitation. Given that the schema already documents both parameters and no output schema exists, the description provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool. It doesn't spell out the return type, but 'full details' implies an object, and the market caveat is the most critical contextual detail.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptive comments ('Spotify audiobook ID' and the ISO market code with the market restriction). The tool description adds no extra meaning for parameters—it only repeats the market availability. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get'), a precise resource ('audiobook'), and the method ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like 'get_audiobook_chapters' (which fetches chapters, not full details) and 'get_saved_audiobooks' (which returns a list). The purpose is 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 implies usage when an audiobook ID is present and full details are needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives, when-not-to-use scenarios, or clarify distinctions from sibling tools. The market restriction adds context but doesn't guide selection among similar 'get' tools.

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