search_albums

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the purpose—such as whether the search is case-sensitive, supports partial matches, or returns paginated results.

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?

While extremely short, the description is under-specified and does not effectively earn its space. It is essentially a tautology of the tool name, missing important context that could be conveyed in a few more words.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should ideally describe the return format (e.g., list of album objects with properties). It also does not address the many sibling tools, leaving the agent without cues for correct selection.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters (query and limit). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema is self-sufficient.

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 verb 'Search' and resource 'albums', making the core purpose obvious. However, it lacks any details about search behavior (e.g., field matching, sorting) that could help differentiate from sibling album-related tools like get_random_albums or get_new_music.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling search tools (e.g., search_artists, search_tracks). The description does not specify that it is for albums only, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations.

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