search_saved_albums

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered; the description adds the non-obvious behavior that filtering happens client-side over a paged walk and notes the quota (GET /me/albums paged), which explains why scan_cap exists. It does not describe pagination limits or return shape, but the added context is genuinely useful.

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 compact clauses with no waste and the core mechanism front-loaded. It is arguably a fragment rather than prose, but nothing is padded.

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 6-parameter read-only search with full schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the key missing behavioral fact (client-side filtering over a bounded walk) and the endpoint quota. Only explicit sibling routing guidance is absent.

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%, so the schema documents all six parameters including defaults for scan_cap and max_results. The description only obliquely supports scan_cap via 'bounded walk' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource (search saved albums) and clarifies the mechanism (client-side filter over a bounded walk), which meaningfully separates it from get_saved_albums and search_saved_tracks/shows. It stops short of naming those siblings directly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 parenthetical 'client-side filter over bounded walk' implies this is for filtered lookup rather than full enumeration, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement versus the many sibling search_* and get_saved_* tools. Usage must be inferred.

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