search_tracks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'best match first' ordering behavior, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior details (e.g., how page and limit interact, whether results are capped) beyond what the schema defaults show. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter list. Every sentence earns its place. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the summary from args), but it is efficient and readable.

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 has an output schema, so return values are presumably documented there. The description covers the search behavior and all parameters. However, it lacks any mention of result ordering beyond 'best match first', error conditions, or rate limits. For a simple search tool with annotations and an output schema, this is adequate but not 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. It does explain each parameter: track (name to search), artist (narrow to one artist), limit (results per page with defaults and max), page (which page). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, which only provides types and defaults. However, it does not add details like whether artist is a partial match, case sensitivity, or how to use page with limit. Baseline 3 is fair.

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 and resource: 'Search tracks by name, best match first.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_track or get_similar_tracks, which retrieve specific tracks or related tracks rather than performing a name-based search. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is clear.

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 usage: search by track name, optionally narrow by artist, with pagination. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_albums or search_artists, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context is clear enough for a basic search tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over siblings.

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