find_playlists

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full disclosure burden and adds a genuinely important limitation: non-owned playlist searches return only name/description/owner, and playlist_tracks only works on owned playlists. It stops short of covering auth or search matching behavior, but it goes well beyond a bare 'search playlists' statement.

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: the search action, the intended use case, and the key API limitation. The caveat is placed at the end so the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter search tool with an output schema available, the description covers purpose, use case, and the critical limitation. It could be slightly richer on how results are scoped (e.g., own vs. public playlists), but nothing essential is missing for a correct call.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the query parameter with a concrete example ('lofi coding beats'), but it does not explain the limit parameter's behavior, maximum value, or pagination, leaving some semantics implicit.

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 opening phrase 'Search Spotify for existing curated playlists matching a query' names a specific verb, resource, and scope. The added use case 'recommend/discover an existing playlist' plus the contrast with playlist_tracks makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like list_user_playlists.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this to recommend/discover an existing playlist') and gives a clarifying limitation about reading tracks. It does not explicitly enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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