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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral details beyond that: ranked matches with specific fields (MBID, name/title, disambiguation, type) and a 0–100 relevance score, plus ordering by score descending. It also mentions Lucene field-scoped syntax. This adds value without contradicting 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence carries useful information: what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and supported syntax. There is no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool is moderately complex (Lucene search) and has an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail every return field. It explains the return fields, ordering, and usage context sufficiently. Given the annotations and schema coverage, the description is complete for guiding selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by giving a concrete Lucene example (`artist:radiohead AND country:GB`) and clarifying that plain text matches names/titles. It also explains the relevance score semantics (100 = exact), which is not in the schema. This provides extra context for agents constructing queries.

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 clearly states the tool performs full-text search across a specific MusicBrainz entity type using a Lucene query string, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting it is the starting point for name-to-MBID resolution, and the sibling set includes browse and get tools which serve different purposes (browse and ID-based retrieval).

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Starting point when resolving a name to an MBID — chain the returned MBID into the matching musicbrainz_get_* tool.' This tells the agent when to use it and how to follow up. It also implies alternatives (browse/get tools) without naming them explicitly, but the chaining instruction is clear and actionable.

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