browse_favorite_albums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains authentication behavior (username only needed for HTML cookie-only clients; API clients always use current account), pagination, and error conditions for invalid parameters. This goes well beyond the name and schema, though it stops short of describing rate limits or maximum page size.

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 opens with a clear one-sentence summary, then uses labeled sections for parameters and return fields. Every line carries necessary information with no filler or repetition.

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 the 4 optional parameters and output schema, the description fully covers invocation requirements, auth nuances, and return shape. It includes error cases for invalid inputs enough for reliable use.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is documented with meaning and default: folder_id with the special '0' meaning all favorites, page starting at 1, order_by valid values, and username conditional behavior. This is richer than the bare input schema.

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: paginated browsing of a logged-in account's favorites, returning lightweight album summaries. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like browse_albums or add_favorite_album by narrowing scope to favorites only.

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 gives clear context: it is for browsing the logged-in account's favoriteshare, and it explains the conditional username requirement for HTML cookie-only clients. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when to use browse_albums instead, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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