search_playlists

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context beyond the schema: the exact API endpoint and the quota indicator ('Quota: 🟢 single'). It does not describe pagination, result shape, or rate-limit behavior beyond the emoji indicator, so the disclosure is meaningful but not rich.

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 short sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then endpoint, then quota. Every element earns its place, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded before the quota detail.

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 well-documented 7-parameter search tool, the schema covers all parameters, and the description adds the playlist scope, endpoint, and quota context. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the response_format parameter, which is fully documented in the schema, so an agent has what it needs to invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema, including enums, defaults, and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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 ('Search'), a specific resource ('playlists'), and the scoping term 'only', which distinguishes it from the many sibling search tools (search_tracks, search_artists, search_albums, etc.). The embedded endpoint 'GET /search?type=playlist' reinforces the exact scope and leaves no ambiguity about what this tool does.

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 'only' qualifier implies this tool is for playlist-scoped searches, leaving non-playlist searches to the sibling search_* tools, and the quota note hints at cost. However, no alternative tool is named and there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use conditions, so routing guidance is left largely to inference rather than stated.

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