market_availability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is read-only, explains it performs N^ times GET requests (1-10 reads), and describes what it reports (per-market available/404 plus full available_markets). Minor gap: no mention of error handling or rate-limit risk, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes only essential details (cost, output, read-only). No wasted words; the emoji and shorthand efficiently convey the N-read behavior.

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 simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: purpose, cost (N reads), return contents, and read-only safety are all stated. Parameters are fully documented in the schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a little context by linking 'uri' to playability checks and 'markets' to the 1-10 market list, but largely reiterates what the schema already documents. No significant extra parameter meaning beyond 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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'checks if a track/episode/album is playable in each of 1-10 given markets'. It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_available_markets by specifying per-entity multi-market preview and listing the exact output (per-market available/404 plus full available_markets).

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?

Provides clear context for when to use: when needing a per-market playability check across 1-10 specific markets. It implies distinction from single-market or full-market-list tools but doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so not a 5.

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