search_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that results include ids and that the search is against Spotify's catalog, which is useful. However, it doesn't mention pagination, result ordering, or what happens with no results. The description is honest and non-contradictory, but lacks deeper behavioral detail.

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 sentences, no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the downstream use case is stated efficiently. Every sentence 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?

The tool is a simple search with an output schema present, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. It covers the query semantics and the purpose of the id in results. It could mention limit behavior, but the output schema and simplicity keep this from being a major gap.

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 must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter's purpose (song name, artist, etc.) and mentions the 'limit' implicitly by saying 'each result' but doesn't explain the limit parameter's behavior or default. The description adds some meaning beyond the schema but doesn't fully document both parameters.

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 specific resource ('Spotify's catalog'), and the object of the search ('tracks matching a query'). It also clarifies the query can be a song name, artist, etc., and distinguishes the tool's purpose by noting results include ids for use with add_tracks/queue_track. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_playlists or list_user_playlists.

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 this tool: when you need to find tracks by query and obtain their ids for later use with add_tracks or queue_track. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the mention of downstream tools gives clear context. A 4 is appropriate because the usage context is clear but exclusions are not explicit.

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