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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) already signal it's a non-destructive, open-world operation. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond annotations: negatives are enforced (not merely preferred), vague briefs are searched anyway with assumptions stated, names are answered exactly, and composer-in-brief ordering behavior is disclosed. No contradiction with 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 long but every sentence earns its place. It starts with the core purpose and examples, then covers edge cases (vague input, translation, negatives, exact names, composer precedence) in a logical flow. No redundancy; the structure front-loads the primary use case before diving into special handling rules.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what to search for, how to handle ambiguity, language translation, negative constraints, exact-name matching, and composer ordering. It even provides a safety instruction about never denying a track without a search. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 50% (only brief has a description; top_k is bare). The description dramatically expands the meaning of 'brief' — mood, scene, genre, energy, instruments, exact names, catalogue numbers, composer — and explains how each is handled. It also clarifies the behavior of 'top_k' implicitly (returns a set of results) and provides concrete examples. This far exceeds what the schema alone conveys.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource ('Find AINSOF music') and immediately gives concrete examples of briefs. It further distinguishes two modes — descriptive briefs versus exact names (track, album, catalogue number, composer) — so an agent can tell exactly what this tool returns and how it differs from a generic search. The explicit handling of composers inside briefs adds another differentiator.

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 extensive when-to-use guidance: it tells the agent to search anyway on vague input rather than clarifying, to translate the brief into English, and to never claim a track is missing until the name has been passed here. It also covers the exact-name path explicitly. While it doesn't name sibling tools, the usage context is so complete that an agent would know when this tool is appropriate.

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