search_fresh

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: it discloses that the user query is transformed with `tag:new`, the ~2-week time window, that it uses one GET /search call, and the quota cost (🟢 one GET /search call). It stops short of declaring read-only/no-side-effect behavior explicitly, but for a search tool that is largely implied.

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 sentences with zero waste: the core concept ('Query-scoped newness', tag:new, ~2 weeks) is front-loaded, the use case and dead-endpoint caveat follow compactly, and the quota line is a single scannable token. Every sentence earns its place.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, query transformation, time window, quota, and a known-pitfall workaround. Minor gaps — return format and pagination behavior — are largely handled by the response_format, limit, and max_results schema fields, so only a small residual gap remains.

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 83% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description's `tag:new` explanation adds some meaning to how the `query` and `types` parameters behave, but it does not compensate for the undocumented `max_results` parameter or add parameter-level syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'runs your query with Spotify's `tag:new` filter (last ~2 weeks of releases)'. The 'what just dropped' framing and the explicit contrast with the 'dead browse/new-releases endpoint' distinguish it from every generic search sibling without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear usage context — per-artist/genre new-release discovery — and tells the agent which endpoint to avoid ('without the dead browse/new-releases endpoint'). However, it never names any of the many sibling search tools (search, search_tracks, search_advanced) or states when to prefer this over them, leaving the alternative-routing partially implicit.

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