get_item_info

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions retrieving 'detailed information' but doesn't specify what details are included, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or error conditions. This leaves significant behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 appropriately concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation could be slightly better integrated rather than appearing as a separate 'Args:' section.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes in the response, doesn't mention authentication requirements for Spotify API access, and provides minimal behavioral context. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

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 description adds meaningful parameter context beyond the schema, explaining that 'item_id' is a 'Spotify ID' and 'type' accepts specific values ('track', 'album', 'artist', 'playlist'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates somewhat, though it doesn't fully document all parameter semantics like format requirements or constraints.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a Spotify item'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential siblings like 'get_current_track' or 'get_artist_top_tracks' that also retrieve Spotify item information, preventing a perfect score.

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. With siblings like 'get_current_track' for currently playing items or 'get_artist_top_tracks' for artist-specific data, there's no indication of when this general item info tool is preferred over more specialized ones.

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