Search Spotify

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results span tracks, artists, albums, playlists and profiles, and that the search covers the whole catalog rather than the user's library. However, it says nothing about authentication expectations (a spotify_login sibling exists), rate limits, or result ordering, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 scope statement is front-loaded in the first sentence and each following sentence adds new information (result categories, usage condition). The 'same search box as the web player' analogy is a bit of filler but does convey matching behavior, so it mostly earns its place.

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?

With a 100%-covered schema, only two parameters, and an output schema present, return values and parameters need no further explanation. The remaining gap is behavioral context such as auth requirements, which matters less for an obviously read-only search but is still unstated.

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%, with both 'query' and 'limit' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's mention of the categories searchable adds marginal framing but no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Search the whole Spotify catalog') and adds scope contrast ('not only your library'), which differentiates it from the search_liked_songs sibling. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the resource boundary is clear enough for an agent to choose correctly.

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?

It gives an explicit selection condition: 'Use it when the song is not in the Liked Songs,' which effectively routes the agent away from the library-scoped search tools. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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