market_availability

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure — and it delivers: 'Read-only' declares the safety profile, '🟡 (N reads, 1-10)' discloses the multi-call cost, and 'Reports per-market available/404 plus full available_markets' explains response semantics. This goes well beyond what a bare schema would convey, though it stops short of covering auth requirements or rate-limit implications for up to 10 sequential reads.

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 core concept 'Per-entity multi-market preview' is front-loaded, followed by a single dense sentence that conveys mechanics (N× GET pattern), output (per-market available/404 + available_markets), cost (🟡 N reads), and safety (Read-only). There is zero filler; every clause earns its place while staying compact.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior — and it does ('per-market available/404 plus full available_markets'). It covers scope, mechanics, cost, and safety, which is sufficient for a read-only preview tool. Minor gaps exist (no note on response_format's effect on output shape, no rate-limit caveat), but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% — uri, markets, and response_format are all documented in the schema with examples and defaults. The description reinforces the relationship (each market drives one GET) and the supported entity types, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource: 'checks if a track/episode/album is playable in each of 1-10 given markets.' It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like get_available_markets (which lists Spotify's supported markets globally) and market_validate (which validates market codes) by the phrase 'Per-entity multi-market preview' and the per-market available/404 reporting. The underlying API pattern (N× GET /{type}/{id}?market=X) further pins down exactly what it does.

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 intended use — checking playability across 1-10 markets for a single entity — is clearly implied and the N-read cost is flagged. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance distinguishing it from closely related siblings such as get_available_markets, market_validate, search_market_diff, or a single get_track/get_album call with one market. With this many sibling tools in the same domain, explicit alternative routing would materially help an agent select correctly.

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