get_artist_albums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the limit-omission behavior (fetch all), the exclusion of appears-on/compilation albums with reasoning, and the Spotify restriction context. This goes well beyond the schema and gives the agent a clear picture of what the tool does and does not return.

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 two paragraphs with no wasted words. The core action and limit behavior are front-loaded, followed by the sibling distinction and exclusions. It's slightly longer than minimal but every sentence adds value, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 description covers the essential usage, exclusions, and limitations. An output schema exists, so return-value details are presumably structured there. It doesn't mention pagination or rate limits, but these are secondary given the output schema and the clear scope. Overall, the description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the `limit` parameter's semantics ('Omit limit to fetch all of them') which adds meaning beyond the schema's type/default. The `artist_id` parameter is self-evident from its name. This is sufficient compensation for a two-parameter tool.

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 'Get' and resource 'an artist's albums and singles.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_artist_top_tracks and positions itself as one of two viable routes to the real catalog, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance by naming the alternative get_artist_top_tracks and explaining its failure modes (403 without Extended Quota Mode, caps at ~10). It also states what is excluded (appears-on and compilation albums) and why, so an agent knows exactly when to choose this tool over others.

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