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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains the automatic extraction of genre/mood/tempo and states that the response includes metadata, license pricing, and translated search parameters. The verb 'Search' implies a read-only operation. It lacks details on rate limits or auth, but for a search tool this is sufficient, earning a 4.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and output details. Every sentence earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. This is highly concise and well-structured.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly includes return behavior ('Returns tracks with metadata and license pricing, plus the translated search parameters'). It also explains the natural language processing capability and gives example queries. Per_page details are in the schema, so the description is complete for a search tool with two parameters and no annotations.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptive coverage for both parameters (100%). The description adds value by explaining how 'phrase' works through natural language examples and the extraction behavior, but it adds nothing beyond the schema for 'per_page'. The schema does the heavy lifting, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: search the OnChain Music catalog using a plain English description. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing natural language processing ('the API automatically extracts genre, mood, tempo') and gives concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tool 'search_catalog', so it lacks direct sibling differentiation, meriting a 4 rather than 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?

The description says 'Best for open-ended requests' and provides clear example queries, giving useful context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the 'open-ended' qualifier implies a contrast with structured search. This aligns with a 4: clear context, but no explicit exclusions.

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