get_album

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get details,' which is a bare minimum restatement of the name. It does not disclose idempotency, side effects, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any behavioral traits beyond the obvious read operation. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short: two sentences plus a param list. It is front-loaded with purpose. There is no wasted text, but the Args section is slightly meta and could be integrated. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured.

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 tool simplicity (single resource by ID) and presence of output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description is reasonably complete. It identifies both parameters and one param's effect. However, it could mention the return schema scope or any prerequisites (e.g., must be a valid Spotify album ID).

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. It briefly explains market purpose ('affects availability/relinking'), adding value beyond the schema. However, album_id is described only as 'The Spotify ID of the album,' which adds little beyond the schema type and name. While helpful, it does not fully compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Get details of a Spotify album by its ID.' This clearly communicates the action (retrieve), resource (album details), and identifier (ID). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_albums (multiple albums) and get_album_tracks (tracks of an album).

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 when you have an album ID and want details, and mentions that the market parameter affects availability. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., get_albums for multiple IDs) or provide any exclusion criteria. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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