Search Spotify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the key behavioral constraint of returning at most 10 results per call, which is not evident from the schema alone and helps set expectations for pagination.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a useful behavioral detail. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description, combined with annotations and output schema, covers the essential scope: searchable types, result limit, and safety. It misses the offset/pagination detail, but this is a minor gap since output schema explains return values and the tool is relatively simple.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains item_type by listing the allowed types and implicitly explains limit via 'at most 10 results'. However, it does not clarify the 'query' parameter (though less necessary for a search tool) or the 'offset' parameter for pagination, leaving some semantics ambiguous.

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') and enumerates the exact types of results: tracks, albums, artists, playlists, podcast episodes, or shows. This clearly distinguishes it from library-specific or playback-related sibling tools.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (searching across multiple Spotify item types) and implicitly excludes use cases like library management or playback control. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives.

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