lyric_snippet_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and delivers substantially: the hard limitation ('Spotify's public API has no lyrics endpoint'), the true matching basis ('title/album-based'), and cost behavior ('Quota: 1-2 /search calls'). It also reveals the ranking heuristic, which is genuine behavioral context beyond what a tool name alone implies.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences: the first front-loads purpose, mechanism, and ranking; the second groups the critical limitation, verification instruction, and quota into a clearly flagged DISCLOSURE section. Roughly 50 words with zero filler.

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?

Purpose, mechanism, limitation, quota, and verification guidance are all covered, and the schema documents all five parameters. The only modest gap is that the shape of returned candidates is not described and there is no output schema; the response_format enum ('concise'/'detailed'/'json') only partially substitutes for that.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds one meaningful detail beyond the schema — that the snippet is run as a 'quoted-phrase' search — but contributes nothing about limit, artist, market, or response_format that the schema doesn't already document.

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?

States a specific verb ('Finds candidate tracks'), resource scope (tracks only), and the exact mechanism ('runs quoted-phrase /search') plus ranking behavior ('ranks exact title matches first'). This differentiates it from generic siblings like search_tracks, search_fresh, and search_deep without requiring schema inspection.

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?

Clearly establishes the triggering use case ('remembered lyric or title fragment') and adds post-call guidance ('verify the snippet against the returned candidates'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., search_tracks, search_by_isrc) or state when-not-to-use conditions, which keeps it from a 5.

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