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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: script handling ('Armenian script is also matched'), romanisation preference, and the return payload ('ids for the other tools and a playable armenly.com link'), which tells the agent how to chain into get_track/get_album.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct load: what is searched, how to phrase the query with concrete examples, and what comes back. Nothing is repeated from the schema and the scoping information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter, read-only search with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: how results are returned and how they connect to the other tools. Relevance ordering is unstated but not required to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however the description adds matching semantics beyond the schema — romanised spellings work best and Armenian script is also accepted — which directly affects how the agent formulates the required 'query'. The optional 'limit' parameter is not discussed, but the schema documents it fully.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search the Armenly catalog of Armenian music') plus the entity types searched (artists, albums, songs) and the matching key ('by name'). This implicitly separates it from the browse_* and get_* siblings, but no sibling is named, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

Use for name-based lookup is clear from context, and the romanisation note steers query construction. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to alternatives such as browse_genre or list_artists for faceted discovery, leaving the choice to inference.

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