search_saved_shows

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the implementation mechanism ('bounded walk + client-side filter') and the underlying API call and cost profile ('Quota: 🟢 GET /me/shows paged'), which is genuinely useful. However, it omits the completeness caveat — matches beyond the scan cap will not be found — and says nothing about result ordering or pagination behavior, both of which matter for a search tool.

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 purpose is front-loaded, the mechanism is tucked into a parenthetical, and the quota/cost signal is a compact second sentence. Every word 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 read-only search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, mechanism, and quota. But scan_cap's semantics are left entirely to inference, there is no routing between the many sibling search/list tools, and the completeness limitation of a bounded walk is never stated. These gaps are meaningful for an agent deciding whether this tool can satisfy a query.

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 75%, so the schema already documents query, max_results, and response_format. The description adds modest value by explaining that query is applied client-side over a bounded walk, connecting query and scan_cap semantically. However, scan_cap itself is undocumented in the schema AND the description — its role as the walk bound is only implied by the phrase 'bounded walk'.

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 and resource — 'Search saved podcast shows' — which clearly distinguishes this from global catalog search (search_shows) and unfiltered listing (list_saved_shows). The parenthetical '(bounded walk + client-side filter)' further clarifies the search mechanism. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool for contrast, so the differentiation relies partly on the tool name itself.

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 the usage context: substring-matching against the user's saved show library rather than Spotify's global catalog. The 'bounded walk' phrase hints that this is a local filter over paged library data. But there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tools are named despite many overlapping siblings (search_shows, list_saved_shows, find_show_by_publisher).

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