get_album

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

With no annotations provided, the description partially discloses behavior by listing return fields (tracklist, tags, wiki) but omits any side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations since none exist.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every phrase ('Get detailed info', 'tracklist, tags, wiki') is essential and earns its place.

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 simple retrieval tool with four self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does. A mention of the mbid priority or required combinations could improve it slightly, but it is not deficient.

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 already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only states the output types, not parameter roles 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 'Get detailed info for an album: tracklist, tags, wiki' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('album'), and lists concrete data components, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_artist or get_track.

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 implies usage for retrieving album details but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools. Its purpose is clear but lacks comparative context.

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