saved_albums_by_decade

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add useful behavioral facts — the tool is read-only and grouping derives from each album's release_date. However, it omits other consequential behaviors, such as paginated walking controlled by scan_cap, the default result cap, and how albums without a release_date are handled.

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 of roughly 20 words with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical release_date clarification and the standalone 'Read-only' note each earn their place, though the terseness comes at the cost of the behavioral detail missing elsewhere.

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 must carry the return-value burden, but it only says 'show a histogram' — leaving the bucket structure, response shape, and the effect of max_results/scan_cap on the output unspecified. An agent could make a reasonable default call, but would be guessing at output details and limit interactions.

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% — scan_cap, max_results, and response_format all carry documented semantics in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that baseline, so the baseline 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 states a specific verb ('Group... and show'), a specific resource (saved albums), and an explicit grouping key (release decade from release_date), so an agent knows exactly what the tool computes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from near-sibling aggregation tools like saved_albums_by_year, saved_albums_by_label, or saved_albums_by_type that appear in the same tool family.

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 usage context is implied by the purpose statement — an agent wanting a decade-level histogram of saved albums can infer this is the right tool. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing among the many similar siblings such as saved_albums_by_year, era_distribution_report, or decade_sampler_plan, leaving selection partially to inference.

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