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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description's help. The description adds the useful constraint that matching is name-based (not genre/country based) and lists return fields, but says nothing about match fuzziness, empty-result behavior, or rate limits. Against rich annotations, that is a modest added value.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation, followed by what is returned and when to use it. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter read-only search with an output schema, full schema coverage, and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, return shape, and invocation context. The only missing piece is routing guidance against lookalike siblings such as get_top_stations.

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%: both `query` and `limit` (with its default of 10) are documented in the schema itself, plus there are examples. The description only restates that search is by name, adding no syntax guidance (partial match, case sensitivity) beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Search radio stations by name" gives a specific verb and resource, and the second sentence enumerates the returned fields (name, URL, country, genres, popularity votes), so the agent knows what it gets back. It is clearly distinct from aggregation-style siblings like get_top_stations, though it never names an alternative 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?

"Use when looking for a specific station or browsing by keyword" gives a clear contextual trigger for invocation. It stops short of exclusions — it does not say to prefer get_top_stations for chart/top-list lookups or radio_list_countries for country browsing.

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