Search Spotify

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does convey that the tool is a public, read-only search rather than a user-specific operation. But it omits potential behavioral details such as result format, whether results are paginated, or any rate-limit considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the essential purpose immediately and wastes no words.

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 search tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it tells the agent the core action and scope. Yet with no annotations and no output schema, an agent would benefit from more guidance about expected result shape or the meaning of the search query and limits.

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%, so the description should compensate. It partially mirrors the 'type' enum by naming tracks, artists, and albums, but it does not explain the 'query' parameter or the 'limit' behavior beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 states a specific verb ('Search'), a clear resource ('the public catalog'), and the item types ('tracks, artists or albums'). This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on user-specific profile and listening data.

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: whenever the agent needs to find public catalog items. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the usage boundary to inference.

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