spotify_search_tracks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it searches the catalog, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, pagination, result ordering, or any side effects. The lack of such context is a significant gap for a search tool that returns a list of tracks.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or usage scenarios, which would have added value without excessive length.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or the semantics of 'limit' and 'market', and provides no usage examples or context. An agent would need to inspect the schema (which lacks descriptions) or guess, making this insufficiently complete.

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 for parameter meaning. It partially explains the 'query' parameter by listing search fields, but completely ignores 'limit' (default 10, max 50) and 'market' (two-letter country code). The agent gets no hint about pagination or market filtering, leaving these parameters underspecified.

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 ('Spotify catalog'), and a target ('tracks'), and enumerates the search dimensions ('by title, artist, album, or free text'). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from siblings like spotify_identify_track (audio identification) or spotify_resolve_links (link resolution).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling search-related tools (e.g., spotify_identify_track, spotify_resolve_links, or youtube_search_videos). It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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