search

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

The description discloses the key behavior: it returns up to `limit` simplified track objects. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure, and it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, has no side effects, or requires authentication. Basic behavior is covered, but deeper transparency is missing.

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 that front-loads the core purpose and includes the most important behavioral detail about the return value. Every part of the sentence contributes meaningful information with no 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?

For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description is complete. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of simplified track objects and the `limit` constraint covers the return-value expectations. No additional context seems necessary for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 needs to compensate for the bare parameter schema. It does add meaning by explaining that `limit` caps the number of returned simplified track objects, and `query` is indirectly defined as the search term via 'Search Spotify tracks.' Still, it does not define the expected query format or default behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool searches Spotify tracks and returns simplified track objects. The verb is specific ('search'), the resource is explicit ('Spotify tracks'), and the return type is mentioned. No sibling tool competes with this search function, so differentiation is not an issue.

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 the tool should be used when a track search is needed, and the `query` parameter is clearly the search input. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over alternatives like resolve_tracks, or any stated exclusions or prerequisites. Context must be inferred rather than stated.

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