search_fresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool makes one GET /search call, applies Spotify's `tag:new` filter, covers roughly the last two weeks of releases, and avoids the dead browse/new-releases endpoint. This is strong behavioral context, though it stops short of describing edge cases like empty results or auth requirements.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the core concept, then adds quota, then a decision guide. Every part earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, quota, and alternatives well. The main gaps are the undocumented max_results parameter and the absence of any note about return shape, though response_format partially addresses this in the schema.

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 high (83%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about how the query maps to `tag:new` and that release types are the meaningful target, but it does not explain remaining parameters like max_results, which also lacks a schema description. The schema and description together are adequate but not enhanced enough for a higher score.

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 states the tool runs a query with Spotify's `tag:new` filter for recent releases, and names the exact use case: per-artist/genre 'what just dropped'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with search, search_deep, search_by_isrc, and whats_new.

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 'Decision guide' is explicit: use search_fresh for newness-filtered hits, and names search, search_deep, search_by_isrc, and whats_new as alternatives with their respective purposes. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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