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 behavioral burden. It discloses the fuzzy-resolution caveat with a concrete example and the consequence of omitting minimal. It could add more about permissions/rate limits, but the read-only semantics of 'Fetch' are clear.

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?

Compact structured Args block plus one example with no filler. The example is long but earns its place by clarifying a non-obvious ambiguity.

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?

All required invocation logic is present, and the output schema handles return-shape details. It covers identification, fallbacks, and the optimization flag, so an agent can call the tool correctly without further assumptions.

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%, yet the description documents all four parameters: slug, artist, name, and minimal, including dependency constraints and behavior. The Cassius example makes the ambiguous fallback resolution concrete.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('an album's detail, scores, tracks, reviews, and credits'). It is clearly distinct from sibling search tools like search_albums and get_critic_lists.

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?

Explicitly says slug is the authoritative identifier, artist/name are fuzzy fallbacks only when slug is unavailable, and directs the agent to resolve with search_albums and pass its slug. The minimal parameter also gets a precise when-to-use condition.

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