search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the tool is read-only, results are paginated (implied by limit parameter), or any rate limiting or ordering. The description is too brief to fully inform an agent.

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 one sentence and achieves its purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Search' and resource list. However, it could include a brief note on behavior without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema, return values are covered. However, the description lacks information on parameter constraints (e.g., required fields, default values) and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively.

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%, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It mentions allowable types (e.g., tracks, albums) but does not describe the 'query', 'limit', or 'types' parameters in detail, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from names alone.

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 tool searches across multiple content types (tracks, albums, artists, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling get_* tools that retrieve single items. However, it does not specify that the tool returns a list of results.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use search vs. get_track). The context signals and sibling list indicate many lookup tools, but the description provides no selection criteria.

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