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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: this is the public catalog, each song is a 1-of-1 bundle, and purchasing is deliberately out of scope. It does not address result volume/pagination, but the limit parameter in the schema covers that.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and filtering capability, then constraints, then the sibling alternative — a good ordering. Slightly wasteful in repeating the entire sentence in Korean, which conveys no extra routing information to an agent, though it does signal the catalog's locale.

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 9-parameter, filter-only search tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies what is needed: scope, filterability, read-only status, and the out-of-scope action. Result shape isn't described, but no output schema exists to lean on, so a small gap remains.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description enumerates the filter dimensions — text, genre, musical key, BPM range, score formats — mapping to five of the parameters. The remaining undocumented ones (has_mr, has_lyrics, limit) have self-explanatory names and limit is described in the schema. It adds synthesis value without contradicting the schema.

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 verb and resource — searching the public WIA Music catalog — and scopes it to original K-pop/K-trot/K-ballad songs sold as 1-of-1 bundles. An agent immediately knows this is a read-only catalog lookup, not a licensing or download tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_song or list_catalog_facets, which keeps it 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?

Gives clear context: read-only, purchasing happens on the website, and copyright screening of arbitrary audio belongs to the Music Check MCP instead. That is an explicit when/when-not with a named alternative. It stops short of routing among the local siblings (get_song, get_song_lineage, list_catalog_facets), which the schema itself hints at for genre values.

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