search_albums

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the HTTP method (GET), which implies a read-only operation, and adds operational quota context ('Quota: 🟢 single') beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't describe response shape or pagination, but those are minor for a read-only search.

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?

One compact sentence front-loads the core scope ('Search albums only') and then adds the endpoint and quota. There is no filler; every token adds useful information.

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 search with fully documented parameters, the scope, endpoint, and quota are sufficient for an agent to call it correctly. It doesn't explicitly describe the return value, but the tool name and the response_format parameter make that reasonably clear. A note about alternatives to general/saved search would improve it, but it is not essential.

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 already documents all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but the schema fully compensates, making this acceptable.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a specific resource ('albums only'), and pins the exact endpoint/type filter (GET /search?type=album). This clearly distinguishes it from the many sibling search_* tools and leaves no ambiguity about 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?

'Albums only' is a clear scoping rule: use this tool when you specifically want album search results, not tracks, artists, playlists, or shows. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives for mixed-type search or saved-album search, so it doesn't reach 5, but the context is clear.

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