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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions return fields (licence status, transmitter power, antenna height) but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether any permissions are required, rate limits, or potential side effects. It lacks critical behavioral context for an agent.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and return highlights, making good use of space.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and partial parameter descriptions, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how parameters interact, default behaviors, pagination, or the structure of the returned data beyond enumerating a few fields. An agent calling this tool would lack essential context for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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 coverage is only 50% (kind and region have descriptions; query and limit do not). The description adds no parameter semantics—it does not explain the expected format of query, the meaning or default of limit, or valid values for kind and region. It fails to compensate for the incomplete schema.

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 states a clear verb 'Search' with specific resources ('stations, networks and streaming channels') and search criteria ('name, callsign, network or owner'). It also indicates what it returns, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like media_whats_on or media_verify.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus althernatives. It does not state exclusion criteria, alternative tools, or conditions under which another media_* tool should be preferred. Sibling tool names suggest their scopes but no explicit routing is given.

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