search_saved_albums

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden and does useful work: it reveals that filtering is client-side over a bounded paginated walk and reports the quota endpoint (GET /me/albums paged). It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or response shape, but the endpoint and search semantics strongly imply a non-mutating operation.

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, each earning its place: one defines the operation and its implementation, the other gives the quota/cost signal. No redundant filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given a rich 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description adds the missing operational context (client-side filter, bounded walk, quota) that an agent needs to anticipate cost and behavior. It stops slightly short of full completeness by not recommending a sibling for alternatives, but that belongs more to usage guidance.

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?

All six parameters already have complete descriptions in the schema, so the baseline applies. The phrase 'client-side filter over bounded walk' adds some context for scan_cap and max_results, but the description does not need to explain individual parameters because the schema already covers them at 100%.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Search saved albums') and adds a discriminating implementation trait ('client-side filter over bounded walk') that separates it from catalog-wide search_albums and from get_saved_albums. The scope (saved albums, not tracks/shows) is unambiguous.

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 makes clear the tool operates over saved albums rather than the general catalog, but it never explicitly states when to prefer this over search_albums or search_saved_tracks, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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