Search tracks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behavioral quirks: Spotify query syntax, the non-existence of related endpoints, and the intended usage pattern. It doesn't cover rate limiting or auth, but provides strong context for safe invocation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose. The description efficiently packs syntax, alternatives, and constraints without redundancy.

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-param tool with no output schema, it explains the return (URIs), query syntax, and how to combine with get_my_taste. It doesn't detail response structure or error cases, but those are less critical here.

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 covers one of two params (query) and description adds query syntax detail beyond the schema. The limit param is left undocumented in both schema and description, so while query semantics are enriched, the coverage gap holds the score at mid-level.

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?

States a specific action ('Find tracks on Spotify and get their URIs') with a clear resource and outcome. The description also explains the tool's role in the workflow, distinguishing it from playlist management siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use it ('turn an artist/title into a URI') and when not to: it disclaims recommendation and audio-feature endpoints no longer exist and directs the agent to use get_my_taste for grounding. It also advises searching one track at a time.

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