search_deep

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses pagination behavior (up to 5 pages of 10 per type), deduplication by id, server-side walking, and compact return format. It could also mention the default response_format or that it returns fewer results if the catalog has fewer items, but the key behavior is clearly stated.

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?

Very tight and well-structured. The first sentence states the main purpose, the second explains the mechanics (pages, dedupe, compact rows). No fluff, no repetition of the schema's defaults, and it front-loads the most decision-relevant fact (10-per-type API limit bypass).

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 6 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: why this tool exists, what it returns, and the dedup behavior. It doesn't state things like the meaning of 'compact rows' versus 'detailed' response_format or potential market filtering effects, but given the sibling search tools and the schema defaults, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it. It could be a 5 if it explicitly mentioned response_format semantics or when to prefer search_advanced, but it's still strong.

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 input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including defaults like pages=1, types=['track'], max_results=50, response_format='concise'. The tool description doesn't deepen the param semantics beyond the schema. A 3 is the baseline given full schema coverage; the description adds some contextual framing ('server-side', 'per requested type') but the schema is doing the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('walks past the API limit'), a clear resource ('catalog search'), and distinguishes itself from the many sibling search tools by its core value: paginated deep search with server-side fetching and dedup. It mentions compact row fields (name | artists | album | URI), which makes the output shape clear.

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 implies usage: use when you need more than the standard 10-per-type API search limit or need to fetch multiple pages. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like search_advanced or search_fresh, nor does it state when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions that would earn a 5. Still, it clearly signals its main use case.

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