find_in_playlists

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure. It reveals that matching can happen by name/artist substring, ID, or URI, and that Liked status is included. This is sufficient for a read-oriented search tool, though it does not describe response details or side effects.

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?

A single sentence delivers the operation, the search input format, and the extra Liked behavior without filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 tool is simple: one required parameter and no nested schema. The description covers the key user intent and the accepted query forms. Additional output-shape details or rate-limit caveats could improve completeness, but nothing essential is missing for selection and invocation.

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 provides no description for the required `query` parameter, but the tool description compensates by explaining that the query can be a name/artist substring, an ID, or a URI. This gives an agent enough context to construct the parameter correctly.

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 a specific operation: find which of the user's playlists contain a given track. It also distinguishes this from similar-looking siblings like find_track by focusing on playlist membership and Liked status rather than general track search.

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 use case is clearly conveyed: when you need to know where a track lives across the user's playlists and whether it is Liked. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it does not reach a 5.

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