search_playlists

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a search/read operation and notes the default limit, but it doesn't mention authentication requirements, whether the search covers owned vs. all playlists, or any pagination/result-shape details.

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded, usage triggers are bulleted, and Args/Returns are clearly labeled. Every section adds information without redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter search tool, this description is nearly complete: purpose, usage conditions, parameter semantics, and a return type are all present. It is only slightly incomplete because it doesn't detail the dictionary's structure or specify whether authentication is required.

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%, yet the description fully explains both parameters: query as 'playlist name, genre, mood, etc.' and limit as 'Maximum number of playlists to return (default: 20).' This adds real meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations.

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 'Search specifically for playlists on TIDAL,' which names a specific verb, resource, and platform. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search_tracks, search_albums, search_artists, and search_tidal by narrowing the scope.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases like 'Find playlists about...' and 'Look for playlists with...', plus a catch-all 'Any playlist discovery request.' It stops short of stating when not to use it, such as using get_user_playlists for the user's own playlists or search_tidal for broad search.

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