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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely non-structured fact — each call costs 1 credit — which is valuable for a metered agent. It stops there: no mention of pagination (despite a cursor param) or result ordering, so coverage is partial rather than rich.

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 short sentences that front-load the action and add the credit cost. The only waste is the bare leading 'Search.' which merely restates the title before the substantive sentence.

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?

With no output schema and only 40% parameter coverage, the description needs to carry more: pagination via cursor, semantics of limit, what cache_max_age controls, and defaults are all left unexplained. For a 5-parameter search tool this leaves an agent guessing on how to page and how many results it will get.

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 40%, so the description should compensate, but it doesn't. It restates the entity types already captured by the enum and says nothing about 'limit' (result count, max?), 'cache_max_age', or the default type=track behavior, leaving over half the parameters undocumented.

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 Deezer's catalogue, with the five entity types it can return. It is distinguishable from Deezer's by-ID siblings (deezer_track, deezer_album) as the lookup entry point, but it never differentiates itself from other music search tools such as spotify_search or appleMusic_search beyond the platform named in the tool name.

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 implies the search-then-detail workflow by naming the entity types, and the credit cost hints at a metered operation. But it never states when to use this versus deezer_album/deezer_artist (i.e. search first, then fetch details by ID), nor any exclusions or ranking behavior.

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