Check Spotify Liked Songs

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the 'exact' match requirement and 'current user' scope, which are useful. However, it does not disclose any additional behaviors like how invalid IDs are handled or the format of the response, though the output schema presumably covers that. No contradiction with annotations.

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, clear sentence with no redundant wording, earning a top score.

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 membership check with one parameter and an output schema, the description is functionally complete. It lacks any usage exclusions or edge-case notes, but these are not critical for such a straightforward operation. A score of 4 reflects the small gap in usage guidance.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, leaving the description to explain the parameter. The description says 'exact Spotify track IDs,' which clarifies that the track_ids parameter expects exact ID strings, but it does not mention the array format, the 1-40 item limit, or the required nature. This is minimal compensation, so a score of 3.

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 action (check), the resource (Liked Songs), and the scope (exact track IDs), distinguishing it from sibling tools like spotify_saved_tracks or spotify_album_library_contains.

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 implies when to use the tool (to verify if specific tracks are in Liked Songs), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For example, it does not mention that spotify_saved_tracks could list liked songs, or that spotify_album_library_contains is for albums. Thus, it relies on the tool name and context for differentiation.

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