search_albums

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns slugs rather than full album details, which is useful context. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, how matching works, or any limits/ordering, leaving the agent to infer those from the word 'search.'

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. 'Search album releases' immediately states the action and resource, and 'authoritative detail slugs' adds the key output detail. Every word contributes.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description omits query semantics and any guidance on how the returned slugs should be used (e.g., with get_album), leaving the agent to guess at input format. It is adequate for a minimal call but not fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain what the `query` parameter expects (e.g., album title, artist, fuzzy matching, exact phrase). The parameter name 'query' and the verb 'search' weakly imply a free-text search string, but the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('album releases'), and specifies the output type ('authoritative detail slugs'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_artists, search_labels, and search_all, since it is scoped to albums 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 implies usage (search for album releases with a query) but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives. Given siblings like search_all, search_artists, and search_labels, the description does not explain when this tool is preferred over those, leaving selection to inference.

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