search_albums

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

The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what is inherent to a search (e.g., pagination, sorting, or authentication needs). Since there are no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it only states results are returned without detailing limitations or side effects. It's adequate for a simple read-only search, but lacks extra context.

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 concise: a single sentence with a clear verb and a list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and adds useful details about the output. While it could be slightly more structured, it earns high marks for efficiency.

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 that the tool has a simple schema (2 params, fully documented) and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview of return fields. However, it omits important context like pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits, which might be relevant for use. It's adequate but not thorough.

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 input schema already describes both 'query' and 'limit' with examples and default values, so schema coverage is 100%. The description only mentions 'Returns...' without adding parameter-specific meaning. Thus, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Search for albums') and the resource ('albums on Spotify'). It specifies the return fields (album name, artists, release date, track count, and URI), which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_tracks' and 'search_artists'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_playlists' or other search tools, but the resource is clear enough.

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 a basic search use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_tracks' or 'search_artists'. It doesn't mention exclusions or alternative tools, but the straightforward nature of a search tool makes the usage context somewhat clear.

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