statsfm_top_albums_from_artist

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the result (top albums) without mentioning pagination, response format, or any side effects. It does not clarify that this is a read-only operation or how it handles limits and offsets beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise, using a single short phrase. It is front-loaded and efficient, but may be overly terse, sacrificing useful context for brevity.

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?

Given that this tool has 7 parameters and sits among many similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It does not explain the relationship between user_id and artist_id, nor does it address the output structure or any constraints. The agent would need to rely on the schema alone to understand the tool's behavior, which is risky.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already present, which meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding of parameter interactions or defaults.

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 that it returns a user's top albums from a specific artist, which is a clear purpose. However, it does not differentiate from similar siblings like statsfm_top_tracks_from_artist or statsfm_top_albums, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, so an agent cannot determine if this is the right tool without additional inference.

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