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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world search, so the description spends its words on things annotations can't say: results are ranked, prices are included, ids are checkout-ready, and master_only results carry a licensing trap. It stops short of describing pagination behaviour despite a limit parameter capped at 30.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler: what it searches, what it returns and how ids are consumed, then the licensing warning. The most dangerous detail (master_only) is placed last for emphasis without burying the core purpose.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterises the return value (ranked tracks with prices and checkout-usable ids) and flags the one field that could cause a wrong selection. It leaves ranking logic, empty-result behaviour and result-size/paging guidance unstated, which is a minor gap for a 5-parameter search.

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 description coverage is 80% and the schema already enumerates mood, genre and use_case values and exemplar query strings. The description adds no filter semantics of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Search the Artyfile catalog of licensable music') plus what comes back (ranked tracks with prices). It also implicitly separates itself from get_track by describing a ranked multi-result search rather than a single-record lookup.

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 a concrete exclusion rule: tracks with licenseScope "master_only" are Cover Editions with no sync licence and must not be chosen for film/video/media work. It also routes downstream to create_checkout by saying each result id is the productId it accepts, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like get_track or get_license_terms.

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