search_saved_tracks

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does substantial work: it states the operation is a client-side filter rather than a server-side search, discloses the bounded walk of /me/tracks, and explicitly promises to 'Reports walk truncation' — protecting the agent from silently incomplete results. It omits performance or rate-limit caveats for large libraries, but the core behavioral risks are covered.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose+mechanism, sibling routing, and the truncation caveat. The key scoping information is front-loaded before implementation detail, with zero filler.

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 10-parameter tool with full schema descriptions and no output schema, the description addresses the two things an agent most needs beyond the schema: what makes this tool different from catalog search, and the correctness caveat about bounded walking. The response_format choices are documented in the schema. A brief note on the cost of larger max_items walks would round it out, but nothing essential is missing.

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 covers 100% of parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds a conceptual grouping — 'by text query and optional facets' — that maps query to the query parameter and album/artist/added_* to facets, which slightly aids selection but adds no syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource ('Search your Liked Songs (saved tracks)') and names the exact mechanism ('client-side filter over a bounded walk of /me/tracks'). The explicit contrast with catalog-wide `search` distinguishes it from the many search_* siblings without needing to open the 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?

Explicitly directs agents away from this tool for catalog-wide queries: 'For catalog-wide search use search.' The 'client-side filter over a bounded walk' phrasing implies a cost model (local walk, not server-side index), which helps an agent decide when a server-side search sibling is cheaper. It does not contrast with get_saved_tracks or the other search_saved_* siblings, though their resource-type differences are inferable from names.

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