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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, and non-destructive status, but the description adds a distinct behavioral guarantee: no playback side effect. It also discloses the shape of returned candidates, which is useful because there is no output schema. It stops short of explaining service-specific behavior or rate limits.

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?

A single sentence front-loads the action and result, using parentheses efficiently to summarize return fields. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a three-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and return fields, and the schema supplies enum and min/max constraints. However, it leaves parameter semantics unexplained, particularly the service selector and limit, so it is only minimally complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and three parameters, the description should compensate but does not. 'Searches for songs' weakly implies the required query string, but the limit and service parameters are never mentioned, and no formats or constraints are explained.

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 ('Searches') and resource ('songs'), and explicitly scopes the behavior as 'without playing them,' which distinguishes it from playback siblings like play_music. It also names the candidate track fields returned, making the operation unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without playing them' implies this is a search-only tool and suggests it should be used when playback is not desired, but it does not explicitly name play_music as the alternative or state when not to use it. Usage is therefore inferable but not fully guided.

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