spotify_search

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, result ordering, or pagination. 'Search' lets an agent infer a read-only operation, but that is the only behavioral signal present.

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 that carries the verb, the resource scope, and the filter behavior with zero filler. 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 an 8-parameter search tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits result ordering, default page size (only in schema), and what a returned item contains, which would help an agent interpret results.

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 every parameter including the 'tag' and 'type' enums, year-range format, and limit bounds is already documented in the schema. The phrase 'optional field filters' adds a small framing hint but no information 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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and enumerates the exact resource types (tracks, albums, artists, playlists) matching the 'type' enum, plus the scoping notion of optional field filters. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read tools like get_top_items or get_saved_tracks, though it never names those alternatives.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to alternatives. A user wanting their personal top items versus a catalog search gets no hint about which tool to pick. Only the implied 'searching' semantics carry any usage signal.

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