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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: results are ranked, prices are included, result IDs map to productId, and licenseScope 'master_only' indicates Cover Editions with no sync licence. This materially changes how an agent should interpret and act on results.

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 three focused sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose, then states the return relevance for checkout, and ends with a high-value licensing warning. Every sentence earns its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: ranked tracks with prices and a productId usable with create_checkout. It also provides the critical caveat about master_only results lacking sync licences. For a search tool with simple optional filters, an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret results safely.

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 explains query, mood, genre, and use_case clearly. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema; while the licenseScope warning relates to result fields rather than input parameters, it does not compensate for a parameter semantics gap because none exists.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Search the Artyfile catalog of licensable music'. It further distinguishes the tool by noting it returns ranked tracks with prices and that result IDs feed directly into create_checkout, clearly separating it from sibling tools like get_track or get_license_terms.

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 gives practical usage context by explaining how search results connect to create_checkout and by warning against using master_only Cover Editions for film/video/media projects. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools like get_track, so 'when not to use' is only partially addressed.

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