search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, how results are paginated or limited, or what the return format looks like.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. It is concise, though its brevity leaves important parameter and behavioral details unaddressed for a five-parameter tool.

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 no annotations, no output schema, five parameters, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the searchable entity types and two optional filters but omits key parameters and does not describe return behavior or pagination.

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 for all five parameters. It mentions 'year' and 'genre' filters but omits the required 'query' parameter, the 'limit' parameter, and the 'type_' parameter, leaving most parameter semantics undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb ('Search') and resource scope ('tracks/artists/albums/playlists'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not differentiate itself from sibling tools such as resolve, recommendations, or artist_catalog, which prevents a 5.

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 states what can be searched but gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like resolve or artist_catalog. There are no when-not conditions or prerequisites, only the presence of optional filters.

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