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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'search' without indicating that the operation is read-only, safe, or any potential side effects. It also does not mention result format, pagination, or rate limits. The description lacks transparency for an agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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 sentences with front-loaded purpose and a follow-up on filters. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff. It is efficient and scannable.

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 tool's complexity (search with filters) and that an output schema exists (so return values are covered), the description covers the core functionality. However, it misses details like pagination, the ability to search multiple types, or that the 'type' parameter defaults to 'track'. It is mostly complete but has minor gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by describing the query syntax with field filters, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'query' string. However, it does not clarify the allowed values for the 'type' parameter (it lists 'tracks, artists, albums, or playlists' but not explicitly as a parameter) or the effect of 'limit'. Some meaning is added, but not comprehensive.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Spotify for tracks, artists, albums, or playlists'), clearly stating the tool's action and scope. It mentions advanced query syntax with field filters, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like spotify_find_song or spotify_query_library that have narrower focus.

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 explains query syntax (field filters like artist:, genre:, year:) but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as spotify_find_song (presumably for audio matching) or spotify_query_library (for personal library). Implied usage is clear but lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparisons.

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