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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does so by stating the tool searches, returns ranked tracks with prices, identifies productId mapping, and highlights the licenseScope caveat. It doesn't cover all possible behaviors (e.g., rate limits), but for a read-only search operation, this is solid disclosure.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—the first explains the tool's function and the second provides a critical usage warning. No wasted words.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the key return values (ranked tracks with prices), the relationship to create_checkout, and the important licenseScope caveat. It doesn't mention default limit or pagination, but for a search tool with simple params, the coverage is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke 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 only 25% (only query has a description), and the description does not compensate for mood, genre, or limit. It adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides for these parameters, and even query's description is not enhanced. The main description focuses on the catalog and results, not parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool searches the Artyfile catalog for licensable music and returns ranked tracks with prices. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Artyfile catalog'), and distinguishes this from the sibling tools by noting the result id is the productId accepted by create_checkout.

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 provides clear usage context: it's for searching real recordings, and explicitly warns against selecting master_only Cover Editions for film/video/media projects. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this when you need to find music', but that is strongly implied and the warning about exclusions adds valuable guidance.

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