get_album

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds useful context like using mbid instead of names and autocorrect behavior, but does not mention potential response formats or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Each sentence earns its place; no redundancy.

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 complexity of 6 parameters with no required ones, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers key usage aspects. It explains the mutually exclusive name/mbid requirement and optional parameters. Missing edge cases like error conditions are not critical given the output schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by explaining album, artist, mbid, username, autocorrect, and lang. However, it doesn't detail the format or required syntax for each beyond the basic explanation, relying on parameter names.

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 states a clear purpose: 'Get album metadata' with a specific list of data types (tracklist, listeners, playcount, tags, wiki). This is distinct from sibling tools like get_album_tags or search_albums, which target subsets or different operations.

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 the tool is for retrieving album-level metadata but does not explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like get_album_tags or search_albums. It provides no exclusions or conditions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer basic usage.

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