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

Annotations already declare read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds a real behavioral fact beyond them: the results carry a url that feeds directly into edit_project, which tells the agent what comes back and how to chain calls. It does not disclose pagination or result-count behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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 clauses, purpose front-loaded, no filler. Every phrase carries information: search intent, facets, and the downstream url usage.

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 six-parameter optional-filter, read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the essential facets and tells the agent what a result contains (a url) and where it goes. The main omission is pagination behavior for page/limit, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 33%, so some description compensation is warranted, and it does map mood/genre/words to the free-text query and length to the duration bounds. But page and limit are never explained, and the description doesn't clarify that the filters combine or that duration is in seconds beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('Find music tracks') plus the intended use ('for a project's background') and the searchable facets (mood, genre, words, instrumental, length). It is clear enough to separate from a generic media search, though it never names its closest sibling search_stock_media to draw the boundary 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?

Implies usage: this is for background music in a project, and the returned url is meant for edit_project, which is a genuinely useful workflow hint. However, there is no when-not-to-use guidance or explicit statement of how it differs from search_stock_media, so the agent must infer the choice.

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