search_catalog

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

Even though annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the hard cap of limit=10, offset=1000, the matching pitfalls of free_text, and the absence of popularity/relevance scores. This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know before invoking.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence of purpose, one of usage constraints, and one of output caveat. Every sentence adds non-obvious information, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation content.

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 9 optional parameters, zero schema descriptions, and an output schema present, the description covers most of what matters: caps, pagination, filter strategy, and response limitations. The only notable gap is the unexplained 'types' parameter, which could affect whether an agent searches tracks, artists, albums, or other entity types.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It clarifies limit, offset, free_text, and the field-filtered options, but it never mentions the 'types' parameter or explains how multiple filters combine. The parameter names are self-explanatory, yet the description adds useful semantics without fully covering all 9 parameters.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource ('Search the Spotify catalog') and immediately conveys what the tool does. It also differentiates the tool's role from siblings like get_track or get_artist by framing it as catalog-wide search rather than targeted retrieval.

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 gives explicit practical guidance: prefer field-filtered terms over free_text, and paginate with offset because of the limit cap. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives for specific use cases, but within the tool's own parameter space the guidance is clear and actionable.

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