search

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully discloses the return type (URIs) and the required input, but says nothing about ranking, pagination (the limit-per-type behavior), or result grouping by type, which the agent must infer from the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences with zero waste: purpose, prerequisite, and return value are front-loaded in that order. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 three-parameter search with full schema coverage, the description covers enough to invoke it, and it compensates for the missing output schema by stating that URIs are returned. It omits any note on result ordering, per-type result separation, or empty-result behavior, leaving gaps an agent would hit in practice.

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 100%, so limit, query and types are already documented, including the per-type default of 10 and the default type list. The description only restates that query is required, adding no format or semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Search Spotify') and even names the downstream consumers of its output (play, add_to_queue), which lets an agent place it in a workflow without opening a schema. It stops short of naming what content types are searched or differentiating itself from playlist-lookup siblings like find_playlist or get_playlist_tracks.

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 clause 'Returns URIs for play and add_to_queue' implies the intended usage pattern and prerequisite, and 'Needs query' flags the required input. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement of how this relates to the playlist-lookup alternatives in the sibling set.

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