search_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses quota cost via 'Quota: 🟢 single' and clarifies the search scope, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only and side-effect-free, nor describe the shape of the response. This is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences contain the essential scope, endpoint, and a quota signal without any redundancy or filler.

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 description is sufficient for tool selection and basic invocation, especially because the schema documents all parameters and response_format hints at return style. But without an output schema, it leaves return-value expectations implicit and does not mention pagination behavior or how results are formatted in the default 'concise' mode.

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 coverage is 100%, so every parameter already has a meaningful description and constraints. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the schema baseline of 3.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Search tracks only') and anchors it to an endpoint ('GET /search?type=track'). The word 'only' clearly distinguishes this from the generic search tool and other type-specific searches in the sibling list.

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 phrase 'tracks only' gives clear scope and implicitly tells an agent not to use this for artists, albums, playlists, or shows. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops 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.