find_show_by_publisher

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it only discloses a default result count, which conflicts with the schema's stated default ('SPOTIFY_MCP_MAX_ITEMS env or 50') for max_results. It also does not clarify whether matching is exact/partial/case-insensitive, nor does it explicitly state that this is a read-only operation.

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 brief, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place. The second sentence about default results is arguably redundant with schema and conflict-prone, but the overall structure is tight and scannable.

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?

For a search tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and a key default, but it doesn't describe what the returned results look like, what 'match' means behaviorally, or how market/response_format affect execution. This is adequate for a simple search-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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's 'Defaults to 10 search results' contradicts the schema's max_results default and introduces confusion about parameter behavior. The description also adds no meaningful detail about the market or response_format parameters, so it fails to add value beyond schema and actually adds a conflicting signal.

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 specific action ('Search the catalog and match shows') on a specific resource ('shows whose PUBLISHER (network) matches your query') and frames the tool as 'the missing publisher facet on show search', which distinguishes it from ordinary show-search siblings. An agent can easily recognize this is the publisher-specific show search tool.

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 gives clear situational context: it is the search tool to use when querying by publisher/network, and the 'missing publisher facet' phrase implies it complements standard show search. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state clear exclusions (e.g., 'for title or artist search, use search_shows instead'), so it falls short of the most explicit guidance.

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