search_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the result is a URI usable for playback, which is a useful behavioral cue, but it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, result cardinality, or whether the query matches tracks only or also artists/albums.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the search action and the returned artifact are stated immediately. It is efficient, though very terse.

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 output schema exists, so the return value needn't be re-explained, but with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the description leaves meaningful gaps about auth and query semantics for what is a gateway tool to playback.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema provides 0% description coverage for it. The description hints that the query targets a song, but adds no guidance on format (title only, title+artist, free text) or matching behavior, so it only partially compensates for the undocumented parameter.

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?

It gives a specific verb+resource ('Busca una canción en Spotify') and states the output form ('devuelve el URI para reproducirla'), so the agent knows this is a lookup tool that feeds playback. It doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling search_playlist, which also searches Spotify, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer search_playlist. The connection to 'play' is only implied by the mention of returning a URI for playback.

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