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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying workflow (resolve metadata, compare permitted preview clips), warns that the first reply is often 'still_running', and tells the caller to invoke the tool again with the same link to retrieve the running search. It also explains licensing restrictions that shape the 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 long but every clause earns its place. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the unsupported-platform, licensing, and retry details are all directly relevant to using the tool correctly. There is no filler.

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 tool with a creative runtime behavior and various input limitations, this description is complete. It covers supported inputs, unsupported inputs, fallback behavior, the 'still_running' response, and result scope, leaving an agent well-equipped to select and invoke the tool properly.

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 description adds significant meaning to the `link` parameter: accepted link types, the 'artist - title' fallback, and explicitly unsupported platforms. The `top_k` parameter is not explained, though its conventional meaning is largely inferable from the name and integer 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 first sentence states the action verb 'Find,' the object 'AINSOF music,' and the search criterion 'SOUNDS LIKE a reference.' It directly distinguishes this from ordinary catalog or metadata search tools like search_music by clarifying the matching is audio-based.

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 says when to use the tool: 'when the user asks for AINSOF music similar to that reference.' It also gives alternatives and exclusions, listing unsupported platforms (SoundCloud, TikTok), telling the user to ask for 'artist - title' instead, and explaining why records by other artists are not returned.

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