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

The annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so behavior is largely covered structurally. The description adds that stations are 'verified' and return direct listenUrl and mapUrl, which is modest value beyond the annotations and mostly overlaps the output schema.

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?

Two tight sentences: capability and filter dimensions first, return content second. No redundant phrasing and nothing that restates the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and all six parameters are documented in the schema. The only gap is behavioral detail around filter combination and empty results, which is minor for a read-only search tool.

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 100% and each parameter has an example-rich description, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description names the same five filter dimensions without adding syntax, precedence, or combination rules beyond the 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?

States a specific verb and resource (search live radio stations in the RoamDial directory) plus the five filter dimensions and the returned artifact (listenUrl, mapUrl). It is clearly distinguishable from the get_* siblings, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: search when you have a keyword/country/genre/language rather than a known station, which is the role of the get_station sibling. However, no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is given, and there is no guidance on combining filters or handling zero results.

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