spotify_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search action but lacks details on rate limits, authentication requirements (implied by sibling 'spotify_auth'), response format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves operationally.

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, efficient sentence in Portuguese that directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function and lists the searchable resources concisely. There's no wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity (a search tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure, which are critical for effective use. While the schema handles parameters well, the overall context for safe and correct invocation is insufficient.

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 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters (limit, query, type). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain query syntax, type implications, or default behaviors. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately documents parameters without extra help from the description.

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's purpose: 'Busca por músicas, artistas, álbuns ou playlists no Spotify' (Search for songs, artists, albums, or playlists on Spotify). It specifies the verb ('busca' - search) and resources (music, artists, albums, playlists), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'spotify_playlists' (which might list playlists rather than search them) or 'spotify_current_playing' (which retrieves current playback), leaving room for minor confusion.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose search over direct listing tools (e.g., 'spotify_playlists' for browsing playlists without a query) or other search-related tools (none exist among siblings, but context isn't provided). There's no indication of prerequisites, such as authentication status, or any exclusions for usage scenarios.

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