spotify_uri_to_open_url

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 conversion happens 'locally' (no network call) and that it is 'stripping nothing else' – informing the agent that the input is preserved besides the necessary URL transformation. It does not cover edge cases or output format details, but for a simple conversion tool these are sufficient behavioral traits.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the transformation, explains the accepted input forms, notes it runs locally, and clarifies it strips nothing else – all in about 15 words. This is an efficient, structured description.

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 simple, low-complexity conversion tool, the description plus a fully documented schema is almost complete. It covers the main purpose, the local execution, and the input variation. It could add a note about the inverse operation or when to prefer alternative URI handling tools, but nothing essential to calling it 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?

The schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage, including the meaning of 'uri' (Spotify URI, bare ID, or URL), 'kind' (`Entity kind when the input is a bare ID`), and 'response_format' with the enum values. The description adds almost no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents, so baseline 3 applies.

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 converts a spotify: URI (or bare ID + kind) into its https://open.spotify.com share URL, which identifies the exact verb and resource. It also differentiates from related sibling tools like open_url_to_spotify_uri (which does the reverse) and format_spotify_uri by specifying the target output format.

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 descriptor gives a clear context: use this when you need a share URL from a spotify: URI or bare ID + kind. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude cases (e.g., converting open URLs back to URIs), but the intent is unambiguous from the phrase 'into its https://open.spotify.com share URL'.

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