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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, so the description's main behavioral addition is mentioning the data source (RadioBrowser) and return fields. This adds value but doesn't disclose rate limits or pagination details.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, filters, and data returned. It is front-loaded with the main action and scope. Minor improvement could include a second sentence for structure.

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 full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema (implied), the description covers the core functionality. It could mention the default sort order or limit behavior, but for a simple search tool it is adequate.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description only summarizes filters (name, genre, country, language) but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches internet radio stations with filters (name, genre, country, language) and specifies the retrieval of streaming URLs, bitrate, and codec. It distinguishes from sibling tools like music.artists.search by focusing on radio stations.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (searching radio stations) versus other music tools (artists, recordings, releases). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, but the context from sibling names is sufficient.

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