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

Annotations already declare this as read-only and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds value by scoping the search to only public catalog content and warning against inferring ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler. The primary usage instruction is front-loaded, and the important caveat about not inferring ownership/licensing is stated compactly in the second sentence.

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?

This is a simple single-parameter search tool with a read-only annotation, a non-destructive annotation, and an output schema to describe results. The description's guidance about the public catalog and its warning about not inferring ownership/licensing fully cover the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 schema describes a single 'query' string with length constraints, but no description text. The tool description implies the query is used to search the public music catalog, which gives domain context. However, it doesn't explicitly explain any query semantics, formats, or expected behavior beyond what the schema already makes obvious.

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 action ('search') and resource ('public music catalog'), making the tool's purpose specific. This differentiates it well from sibling retrieval tools like get_track, get_release, and list_releases, which are either direct lookup or listing operations.

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 explicitly tells an agent when to use the tool: 'when an agent needs to search the public music catalog.' It also adds a caution about not inferring ownership, licensing, or unpublished availability. It doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is clear enough.

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