search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the fallback behavior when multiple types are searched (no track/album fallback noise), which is useful. However, it does not state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or mention any rate limits or authentication requirements. For a search tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 a single sentence with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the key usage tip about `types` follows immediately. Every word adds value, and the structure is optimal for quick comprehension.

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 is sufficiently complete for a search tool with 4 parameters, all documented in the schema. It covers the purpose, the principal parameter behavior (types), and the range of content types. It doesn't address pagination or result format, but those are minor gaps given the schema and the nature of search. The description enables an agent to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds extra meaning specifically for the `types` parameter, explaining the fallback behavior and how to pass a single type. This goes beyond the schema's static enum description and improves agent understanding.

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 identifies the action (search) and resource (Spotify's catalog) and enumerates the content types (tracks, artists, albums, playlists, shows, episodes). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_track and get_artist, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with them.

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 a usage tip about passing `types` as an array to avoid fallback noise, which is helpful. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many specific getter tools (e.g., get_track, get_artist) or when not to use it. The guidance is about parameter usage, not about tool selection.

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