Get Bandcamp album

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes beyond them by explaining price semantics (priceText minimum, null behavior, isNameYourPrice), track artist differences on compilations, and warning that text fields are untrusted user-generated data. These are valuable behavioral disclosures not present in annotations.

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 longer than a simple one-liner, but every sentence carries necessary information: result fields, price nuance, track artist behavior, slug construction, URL conversion, and a security warning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically organized, though slightly dense.

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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description is highly complete. It explains the returned fields, special cases (compilations, price), slug provenance, URL conversion, and security considerations. With no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the response content and edge cases.

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% and the parameter description in the schema is identical to the one in the tool description. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the slug parameter, so the baseline of 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 and resource: 'Get full detail for one Bandcamp album as JSON' and enumerates the exact fields (title, artist, releaseDate, label, tags, description, price, tracklist). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning that tracks[].slug can be passed to bandcamp_get_track and that slugs come from bandcamp_search, bandcamp_browse_tag, or bandcamp_get_artist.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: when full album detail is needed and you already have a slug. It explains how to obtain the slug from sibling tools and how to convert a user-provided URL into the expected format. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the sibling names and the focus on album-level data make the usage boundaries clear.

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